BUSINESS BEFORE QUESTIONS

New Writs

Ordered ,
	That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the County Constituency of Corby in the room of Mrs Louise Daphne Mensch, who since her election for the said County Constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—(Sir George  Young .)
	Ordered ,
	That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Cardiff South and Penarth in the room of Alun Edward Michael, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Three Chiltern Hundreds of Stoke, Desborough and Burnham in the County of Buckingham.—(Ms  Winterton .)
	Ordered ,
	That the Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new Writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Manchester Central in the room of Mr Anthony Joseph Lloyd, who since his election for the said Borough Constituency has been appointed to the Office of Steward or Bailiff of Her Majesty’s Manor of Northstead in the County of York.—(Ms Winterton.)

City of London (Various Powers) Bill [Lords] (By  Order )

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 30 October (Standing Order No. 20).

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

NHS Cost

Peter Bone: What his latest estimate is of the likely cost of the NHS in 2012-13.

Jeremy Hunt: The latest estimates of NHS spending are those published in the 2012 Budget. The planned NHS spending for 2012-13 is £108.8 billion.

Peter Bone: The Conservative-led coalition Government are increasing spending on the NHS, unlike what Labour would do. In my constituency, we will get an urgent care centre in a few months as a result of Tory health reforms. People in Corby already have an urgent care centre as a result of Tory reforms. Does the Secretary of State agree that, while Labour talks about the NHS, Conservatives deliver on the NHS?

Jeremy Hunt: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, last week we announced that waiting times are at near-record lows. The number of hospital-acquired infections continues to go down and mixed-sex wards have been virtually eliminated. I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has an urgent care centre, and am sure that Mrs Bone will appreciate it even more than he does.

Grahame Morris: Does the Secretary of State recognise that the Office for National Statistics survey shows that the mortality rate in north-east England is 12% higher than that in the rest of the UK? Does he recognise the need to invest in more advanced radiotherapy equipment, bearing in mind that 70 of the 212 systems will need to be replaced by 2015?

Jeremy Hunt: I would not necessarily expect the hon. Gentleman to follow announcements that are made at the Conservative party conference, but we did make the big announcement that access to radiotherapy will be transformed, making it available to everyone for whom it is clinically necessary and cost-effective. Improving mortality rates is extremely important. As I have set out, one of my key priorities is to transform the NHS so that we have the best mortality rates in Europe. I hope that that is welcome news for his constituents.

Charlie Elphicke: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be less budget pressure on the NHS if we do better with long-term conditions, get better at integrated care and use data better to predict ill health? To that end, will he come and see the work of the Kent Health Commission on those issues?

Jeremy Hunt: I would be delighted to see the innovative things that are happening at the Kent Health Commission. Looking at how we deal with people with long-term conditions—that is 30% of the population, and the proportion is growing with the ageing population—will be a vital priority for the NHS over the coming years.

Andy Burnham: May I welcome the Secretary of State and his new team to their positions? As the only other person to have made the jump from Culture to Health, I am sure that he will find me a constant source of useful advice.
	The Secretary of State has not said much since his appointment, but he did set out his mission in The Spectator:
	“I would like to be the person who safeguards Andrew Lansley’s legacy”.
	Let us talk about that legacy. Just last week, the Secretary of State slipped out figures on the latest costs of NHS reorganisation. Would he care to update the House on the current estimates?

Jeremy Hunt: Let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that Andrew Lansley’s legacy is—

Mr Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State has been in the House for seven and a half years. I think he knows that we refer to Members by constituency, not by Christian name. It is not difficult.

Jeremy Hunt: First, may I say how delighted I am that the right hon. Gentleman and I once again have the same brief? I look forward to having a constructive relationship with him, not with total optimism, but I will try my best.
	The right hon. Gentleman talked about my predecessor’s reforms and legacy. One of the finest things about my predecessor’s legacy is that he safeguarded the NHS budget—indeed, he increased it during this Parliament by £12 billion—when the right hon. Gentleman said that it would be irresponsible to increase it.

Andy Burnham: Look at the figures: the previous Secretary of State gave the budget a real-terms cut for two years running. Let me give the exact figures, which the Secretary of State did not give the House. The costs of the reorganisation are up by 33% or £400 million, making the total £1.6 billion and rising. And what is that money being spent on? A full £1 billion is being spent on redundancy packages for managers: 1,300 have got six-figure pay-offs and there are 173 pay-offs of more than £200,000. Scandalously, that news comes as we learn today that the number of nurse redundancies has risen to more than 6,100. Six-figure pay-outs for managers, P45s for nurses and the NHS in chaos—is that the legacy that the Secretary of State is so proud of?

Jeremy Hunt: Let us look at some of the facts. The number of clinical staff in the NHS has gone up since the coalition came to power. The right hon. Gentleman talked about the cost of the reforms, which is about £1.6 billion. Thanks to those reforms, we will save £1.5 billion every single year from 2014 and the total savings in this Parliament will be £5.5 billion. Let me remind him that he left the NHS with £73 billion of private finance initiative debt, which costs the NHS £1.6 billion every single year. That money cannot be spent on patient care. He should be ashamed of that.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Secretary of State confirm that NHS spending will increase in real terms during the lifetime of this Government, and that there are no plans from anyone to close the accident and emergency department and the maternity unit at Kettering general hospital? Will he condemn those who say that the Government want to close the hospital, when nobody is going to do that at all?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: that is a mendacious scare story that is being put out on the ground. Real-terms spending on the NHS has increased across the country, which has not been possible across all Government Departments. Because of that, we are able to invest more in patient care, cancer drugs, doctors and facilities across the country, and indeed in Kettering.

Ambulance Waiting Times

Tom Blenkinsop: How many patients waited longer than half an hour in an ambulance to be transferred to accident and emergency in each year since 2009-10.

Jeremy Hunt: The Department’s records date back to 2010-11. The number of ambulance handovers delayed by longer than half an hour was 63,892 between 1 November 2010 and 24 February 2011 and 77,543 between 1 November 2011 and l March 2012.

Tom Blenkinsop: On 27 September, patients and paramedics were left waiting outside James Cook university hospital in Middlesbrough for two and a half hours before being handed over. Dr Clifford of the college of emergency medicine described such delays as being due to an unacceptable mismatch in demand and supply. Does the Secretary of State agree with Dr Clifford, and what steps will he take to ensure that those problems do not recur for my constituents?

Jeremy Hunt: I am extremely concerned about what happened on 27 September. I can confirm to the hon. Gentleman that all the red 1 calls on that day were met within the target time of eight minutes, but the delays were completely unacceptable. I know that the trust is taking measures to ensure that the problems are not repeated, particularly looking forward to the winter time when there is likely to be extra pressure on ambulance services. I will follow the matter very closely, and I expect the trust to come up with measures to ensure that his constituents are properly safeguarded.

Andrew Bridgen: In the summer, I spent an interesting and thought-provoking day observing the work of a crew of the East Midlands ambulance service. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that ambulance trusts across the country, including the East Midlands ambulance service, are performing well in meeting their response time targets?

Jeremy Hunt: I can absolutely confirm that. In fact, I was extremely pleased to see last week that all the standards are being met for both eight-minute category A calls— red 1 and red 2 calls—and 19-minute calls. That is as it should be, but it is no grounds for complacency. Although that is a country-wide picture, there are parts of the country where those standards are not being met in the way that we would like. We will continue to monitor the situation closely.

Andrew Gwynne: I will be charitable to the Secretary of State, but he brushed over the figures in his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop). I have got the actual figures through a freedom of information request. They show that under this Government, 100,000 additional patients are being left waiting in ambulances outside accident and emergency departments for more than half an hour when they need urgent treatment—a totally unacceptable situation. What more evidence does the Secretary of State need of the chaos engulfing the national health service under his Government? It shows that the focus has slipped off patient care and that our accident and emergency units are struggling to cope.

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Gentleman speaks as though the problem of ambulance waits never happened for 13 years under Labour, but he knows that we actually had some appalling problems, with ambulances circling hospitals
	because hospitals did not want to breach their four-hour A and E wait targets. We are tackling the problem, and as I mentioned, if he looks at the figures published last week he will see that we are meeting the standards for ambulance waits that his party’s Government put in place. However, we are not complacent, and we are monitoring the figures closely. Particularly with the winter coming up, we want to ensure that the ambulance service performs exactly as the British public would want.

James Gray: Many ambulance trusts are indeed doing extremely well, as the Secretary of State indicated. Does he agree that that is at least partly due to localism in the ambulance service, which may be undermined if, for example, the Great Western ambulance service becomes an amalgamated regional service? Now it has been announced that the call centre in Devizes will be closed in favour of one in Bristol. Does he agree that there is at least a risk that the local service for people in Wiltshire will be reduced if such regionalisation is allowed?

Jeremy Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend that the purpose of the changes that the coalition Government have brought to the NHS is to tap into local innovation, ideas and ambitions to transform services, and it is important that no changes undermine that. He should take comfort from the fact that my predecessor introduced clear tests for any major reconfigurations, including that they should be strongly supported by local doctors, that the public should be involved in any consultation, that the changes should improve patient choice and that there should be clear evidence of benefits to patients. I hope that that gives him and his constituents some reassurance.

National Pay Arrangements

Mary Glindon: What his policy is on upholding national pay arrangements in the NHS.

Daniel Poulter: NHS trusts and foundation trusts have the freedom to determine the terms and conditions of the staff they employ. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the “Agenda for Change” was negotiated and brought in during 2004 by the then Secretary of State, John Reid, to agree a national framework for pay in the NHS. In general, most trusts support the agreed pay framework and the “Agenda for Change”, and they are likely to continue to use national terms, provided they remain affordable and fit for purpose.

Mary Glindon: In fairness, a truly national health service demands a national pay scheme, and the British Medical Association has warned that the move to regional pay undermines the ethos of “national” in our national health service. How does the Minister intend to act on that warning?

Daniel Poulter: I remind the hon. Lady that it was the previous Government who set up the current national pay framework in 2004, and that framework has been amended 20 times to support employers over that period. The previous Government gave foundation trusts the freedom to amend those pay terms and conditions.
	Regional pay does exist in the NHS. On the basis of what she has said, does the hon. Lady wish to remove the London weighting for those workers who live in London? I am sure she would not want to do that because we recognise that it is more expensive to live in certain parts of the country, and workers should be rewarded for that.

John Pugh: The Lib Dem conference rejected regional pay entirely, but not the London weighting, and 25 honourable colleagues endorsed a submission to the pay review body. With that in mind, is it not odd that the south-west consortium remains part of national pay bargaining?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend makes a good point and it is important that we support national pay bargaining where we can. There is an agreement in principle, endorsed by NHS employers, that national pay bargaining is supported throughout the NHS. It was supported throughout the NHS under the previous Government, who set up the “Agenda for Change”, and during their tenure, that agenda remained fit for purpose. Twenty changes during the previous Government’s tenure benefited employees in the NHS, and rightly so. The current Government believe that we must continue to ensure that the system is fit for purpose.

Jamie Reed: It is most unusual to find the ghost of Christmas past sitting next to the invisible man. The truth is that in May this year, the Deputy Prime Minister stated:
	“There is going to be no regional pay system. That is not going to happen.”
	Regional pay will strip millions from local NHS services; it will hit the poorest areas of the country hardest, damage front-line NHS care, and there can be no justification for it. Will the Minister categorically rule out continuing with these ruinous proposals—yes or no?

Daniel Poulter: The arguments presented by the hon. Gentleman are fatuous, and the previous Government endorsed regional bandings for London workers. If today he is saying that he does not agree—[ Interruption. ] You might learn something if you listen. If he is saying that he does not agree with London weighting for London workers, which is a form of regional pay—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is entitled to be heard.

Daniel Poulter: If the hon. Gentleman listens, he may well learn something about what his Government did when they were in power. They endorsed the fact that in the NHS it is important to recognise that we need inducements in some parts of the country to encourage workers to work there. That is why we have central London and outer London weighting. If it was good enough under the previous Government, it should be good enough now.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are immensely grateful to the Minister, but we have a lot to get through and we really must press on with rather greater dispatch from now on.

Clinical Trials

Sarah Wollaston: What his policy is on making available all information about the results of clinical trials to patients, doctors and medicine approval bodies.

Norman Lamb: The Government support transparency in publishing results of clinical trials, and they recognise that more can, and should, be done. In future, greater transparency and the disclosure of trial results will be achieved via the development of the European Union clinical trials register, which will make the summary results of trials conducted in the EU publicly available. Greater transparency can only serve to further public confidence in the safety of medicines, which is already robustly assured in the UK by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. By law, the outcomes of clinical trials undertaken by companies must be reported to that regulator, including negative results.

Mr Speaker: Order. We are grateful to the Minister but some of these answers are simply too long. If they are drafted by officials, Ministers are responsible—[ Interruption. ] Order. I require no assistance at all from the Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry). She should stick to her own duties, which I am sure she will discharge with great effect.

Sarah Wollaston: I thank the Minister for his answer and for recognising that missing data from clinical trials distorts the evidence and prevents patients and their doctors from making informed decisions about treatment. Will the Minister meet a delegation of leading academics and doctors who remain concerned that not enough is being done to see how we can ensure that all historic and future data are released into the public domain?

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend raises absolutely legitimate concerns, which have been raised by others, including Ben Goldacre. I am happy for my noble Friend Lord Howe or me to meet her and experts to discuss this important issue further.

Mr Speaker: I call Catherine McKinnell.

Catherine McKinnell: I did not have a question on this.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady does not want to come in. Fair enough.

Diabetes and Asthma

Christopher Pincher: What steps the Government are taking to help people cope with conditions such as diabetes and asthma.

Jeremy Hunt: We are working on an outcomes strategy for long-term conditions such as diabetes and asthma structured around six shared goals, early diagnosis, integrated care, promoting independence, and steps to support those with long-term conditions to live as well as possible.

Christopher Pincher: Given that type 1 diabetes in under-fives is growing at 5% each year, what can my right hon. Friend do with the innovative Secretary of State for Education to ensure that nursery and primary school staff have the right skills and knowledge to ensure that they can help young children to cope with type 1?

Jeremy Hunt: The answer is that we are doing quite a lot—a good booklet, “Managing Medicines in Schools and Early Years Settings”, goes around schools, and there are other resources for schools—but we need to do more. We will be announcing a diabetes action plan, a long-term conditions outcomes strategy and a cardiovascular disease outcomes strategy, which will go further to address the issues that my hon. Friend raises.

Keith Vaz: I declare my interest as someone who has type 2 diabetes and welcome what the Secretary of State says. However, according to the latest report, another 700,000 people will contract the disease by 2020, and 80% of amputations are avoidable. Could he ensure that this very important subject is on the agenda of local clinical commissioning groups?

Jeremy Hunt: I certainly can. The number of diabetes sufferers overall will go up from about 3.7 million, which is already 5% of the population, to 4.4 million. We need to do a lot better in how we look after people with long-term conditions if the NHS is to be sustainable. We can also do a lot to transfer the individual care of people who have diabetes through things such as technology, which I will look into carefully.

Stephen Dorrell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the effective delivery of care to people with long-term conditions relies on breaking down the silos within the health service, and between the health service, social care and social housing? Will he encourage the new health and wellbeing boards to follow through that agenda with a serious purpose?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. By 2018, nearly 3 million people will have not one but three long-term conditions. All too often, the system treats them on a disease or condition basis, and not as a human being who needs an integrated care plan. That is the route to lower costs, but it is also the route to transformed care.

Meg Hillier: The Public Accounts Committee has heard that, of 20 trusts that needed to improve their diabetes care, only three took the accepted help. How will the Secretary of State ensure that care through health providers meets the grand targets he has set for himself?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to point out that the consistency of provision is not good, but we will be publishing a diabetes action plan that will try to ensure more consistent provision throughout the NHS. We also need to raise our sights as to what is possible, because as I have mentioned, a third of the population have long-term conditions, and we can do much better at helping people to live with those conditions in a way that promotes their independence.

Community Hospitals

Nick Gibb: What assessment he has made of the role of community hospitals in the range of local health care and hospital provision.

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of community hospitals in his constituency and elsewhere. They can provide high-quality care close to home, particularly for people with long-term conditions and the frail and elderly.

Nick Gibb: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. If there is a conflict between local health officials and local people as to the desirability of a community hospital, as there is in Littlehampton in relation to the Littlehampton community hospital, which most people in the town want to see rebuilt, whose views should prevail—the NHS employees or the local residents of Littlehampton?

Daniel Poulter: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. As he is well aware, it is down to local commissioners—local doctors—in Littlehampton to decide, in consultation with local communities, what is good health care. Of course, we must not get fixated on buildings in the NHS. I know there is a local campaign to support the re-establishment of Littlehampton district hospital, and although that may be a very desirable end, there may be many other ways in which high-quality health care can be provided for his constituents closer to home.

Graham Jones: From April, my local health centre will be transferred to a national property company, a quango, in Whitehall. How can local people in Hyndburn regain some influence over this health centre and its use after April?

Daniel Poulter: Part of reorganising services and delivering good health care is about clinical leadership—I hope that is supported across the House—and local doctors, nurses and health care professionals saying what is important for their patients and what local health care priorities are. Obviously, local communities need to be engaged in that process, but what really matters is what is good for patients and delivers high-quality care for them. We need to deliver more care in the community, and in doing so we have to recognise that some of the ways we have delivered care in the past—picking up the pieces in hospitals when people are broken—need to change. We have to do more to keep people well at home and in their own communities.

Alan Beith: Given that the maternity unit at Berwick infirmary has been suspended since the beginning of August for safety reasons, with births being referred to a hospital 50 miles away, will the Minister take into account the urgent need to provide the necessary clinical support for community hospitals in remote areas so that they can provide local essential services to the highest standards?

Daniel Poulter: I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. We discussed this issue in the Adjournment debate before the autumn recess. He is a strong advocate
	for his local maternity services. The concern was that only 13 births take place at his local maternity unit every year, and whether staff can continue to deliver high-quality care with such a low number of births. Of course, his local providers will want to consider the rurality of the area and the potential, as outlined in the Birthplace study, of rotating staff in and out of the hospital to support his local unit.

Domiciliary Care

Barbara Keeley: What steps he plans to take to ensure that providers of domiciliary care employ staff who are properly qualified and security checked.

Norman Lamb: Providers of services are responsible for the safety and quality of the care they provide. All staff must be properly qualified and vetted, and the Care Quality Commission can and must take action against providers who fail in that regard. Action can range from a warning notice to, ultimately, cancelling a provider’s registration. The commission must be willing to take that action if necessary.

Barbara Keeley: But the Minister knows that a recent BBC programme showed that 217 providers of care at home use staff who are not properly qualified, and that dozens of people with criminal records have not been vetted and are working unsupervised in people’s homes. The Care Quality Commission has reached only just over one in four of its target inspections, with 40% of care at home providers never having been inspected by it. What will the Minister do to ensure that we can have more confidence in care provided at home to vulnerable people and that it is up to a better and safer standard?

Norman Lamb: I absolutely share the hon. Lady’s concern about this. It is intolerable that people receiving domiciliary care do not get high-quality care and that in some cases people are inappropriately employed. The Care Quality Commission must take action where there is evidence of employers not taking sufficient action to guarantee the quality of their staff. It is essential that the people who run those services are held to account if they fail in that regard.

Mark Pawsey: Will the Minister also consider the matter of the uniforms worn by staff in this sector? I understand that on occasions there has been confusion in members of the general public between such staff and qualified nurses.

Norman Lamb: It is absolutely essential that users of services know exactly who the staff are who are caring for them, and the issue of uniform is something that I would be happy to discuss further with the hon. Gentleman.

Health Allocation Formula

David Mowat: What plans he has to review the health allocation formula.

Anna Soubry: We will soon publish the final recommendations of the independent advisory committee on resource allocation. That committee reviews the approach and the formula under which money is allocated to clinical commissioning groups and local authorities so that they can fulfil their public health duties.

David Mowat: There have been two problems with how the formula has worked over the past few years. First, it has not placed enough emphasis on ageing as a criterion, and secondly the Department of Health has not implemented it properly, in so far as flat-rate increases have been given to primary care trusts, meaning that there has been no impact from changes. Both these things have worked to the detriment of Warrington. Will the Minister resolve these issues?

Anna Soubry: I am glad to assist my hon. Friend and assure him that fairness is imperative when it comes to distributing money and deciding where it goes. One reason the Government are keen to make the formula fair is our determination to reduce health inequalities, especially given the last Administration’s legacy of increased inequalities.

Jenny Chapman: The former Secretary of State wanted to make age the only factor in the formula, which would have totally ignored poverty and the local cost of care—[Interruption.] He said it. It would have taken £295 per head away from the north-east. Will the Minister confirm that the local cost of care and poverty will be included in the formula allocation?

Anna Soubry: That was not my understanding of the former Secretary of State’s comments, but I can say that we are absolutely determined to ensure that fairness is achieved, and all the factors she mentions are important in ensuring that fairness.

Dementia

Mary Macleod: What steps the Government are taking to improve care for people with dementia.

Jeremy Hunt: Tackling dementia—particularly the shockingly low diagnosis rates—is a key priority for me and the Prime Minister.

Mary Macleod: I welcome the Government’s steps to support carers and the work they have done, especially on the £400 million to give carers’ breaks from their important responsibilities. Will my right hon. Friend explain what is being done to increase awareness and understanding of carers’ health care needs?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is right to highlight this point. In the draft Care and Support Bill, local authorities will be required to meet the eligible needs of carers. That is a particular concern with dementia, because, all too often, someone looking after a partner with dementia gets to a tipping point where there is no alternative to residential care, but, if we can give them better support,
	they will have a better chance of remaining at home, which, in the vast majority of cases, is where they want to be.

Kate Green: Many elderly people with dementia remain trapped in hospital, because there is not adequate provision in the community for them to be looked after at home. How does the Secretary of State intend funds to be extracted from hospitals to be spent in the community, particularly at a time when local authority funding cuts mean that many of the voluntary agencies providing that support are actually losing posts in my borough?

Jeremy Hunt: The hon. Lady is right to highlight this growing issue. One million people will have dementia by 2020, so we have to take it very seriously. It is not an either/or situation, though, because about 25% of patients in hospitals have dementia, and hospitals would like them placed in the community or at home, where they can be better looked after. This is one of those examples where, under the new reforms, we need much greater integration of services to ensure that those people are treated in the way they need to be.

Pancreatic Cancer

Mark Durkan: What recent progress he has made on improving early diagnosis of pancreatic cancer.

Anna Soubry: We are providing more than £450 million during this spending review period to help diagnose cancer earlier. In January, we are planning to pilot a general symptom awareness campaign that will be relevant to a range of cancers, including pancreatic cancer. Unfortunately, however, pancreatic cancer is often very difficult to detect in the early stages.

Mark Durkan: Has the Minister considered the early diagnosis summit report from Pancreatic Cancer UK highlighting that currently half of diagnoses are emergency diagnoses? It also makes strong cases for new referral pathways, risk assessment tools, direct access for GPs to investigative and diagnostic tools and the development of a National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence quality standard for pancreatic cancer. Can we expect progress on any of these before the 2013 cancer awareness campaign?

Anna Soubry: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work. I am aware of the campaign that he has been running effectively in his constituency, based on the experiences of one of his constituents. As I say, however, and as he will know, pancreatic cancer is, by its nature, a particularly difficult cancer to diagnose early. We will all, of course, remember the untimely death of Sir Stuart Bell. Unfortunately, he was diagnosed only very shortly before his death. I wish that were not as common as it is, but we are doing everything we can to improve screening. I thank the hon. Gentleman again for his campaign, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss it further.

Liz Kendall: Cancer networks have played a crucial role in improving patient care, including by earlier diagnosis. The former Health Secretary
	promised this House that their funding would be guaranteed in 2011, but the South East London Cancer Network now says its budget was cut by 40% between 2009 and 2011. This year, it has been slashed by a further 55% and its staff have been cut from 15 to eight. Will the Minister now admit that her Government have cut funding for vital front-line cancer experts and have broken their explicit promises on cancer care?

Anna Soubry: My information is that any 40% reduction is a result of cuts in administration—and that, if I may say so, seems the right way to go about things. This Government are determined to make sure that when we make cuts of that nature, they are not actually cuts—[Interruption.] It is about moving money around so that it goes to front-line services. This Government are determined to reduce bureaucracy in the NHS and to make sure that patients get the benefit of our spending—unlike under the last Administration, who had it round the other way.

Mental Health Services

Tim Loughton: What steps he is taking to deliver better access to mental health services for school-age children.

Norman Lamb: The children and young people’s improving access to psychological therapies project, which we introduced in 2011, is about transforming mental health services for children and young people with mental health conditions. The Government’s mental health strategy implementation framework, published in July, suggests actions that schools, colleges and children’s services can take to provide better support.

Tim Loughton: The Government should be congratulated on tackling the stigma of mental health by their “No health without mental health” policy, but the growing problem of mental illness among school-age children is a concern and with the demise of the early intervention grant, which included the targeted mental health in schools funding, there is a worry that too many schoolchildren will be neglected. Will the Minister liaise with the Department for Education and with school nurses to make sure that appropriate and timely access to talking therapies and others are available for school age children rather than having to rely on the belated chemical cosh of powerful drugs?

Norman Lamb: May I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work in this area? He has been really impressive and dedicated in his work. I absolutely agree with him about the importance of ensuring access to mental health services for children and adolescents. In fact, the Government are investing over £50 million over a four-year period through the children and young people’s improving access to psychological therapies programme and, critically, involving schools and colleges in that work. I would be very happy to work with my hon. Friend to improve access for children and young people.

Phil Wilson: Will the Minister confirm that funding for children’s mental health services has actually been cut?

Norman Lamb: I repeat the point that we are actually investing more in a transformation of children’s and adolescents’ mental health services—and it is making a real difference. People within the service can see the benefits that it is bringing.

Regional Pay

William Bain: What recent representations he has received on regional pay in the NHS.

Daniel Poulter: I refer the hon. Gentleman to an answer I gave earlier today.

William Bain: Has the Minister had an opportunity to study the research done by the New Economics Foundation a few months ago, which reveals that fully regionalised public sector pay could strip up to £9.7 billion a year from local economies, put 110,000 jobs at risk and hit women twice as hard as men? Given that, what possible justification could this Government have for such a crazy policy?

Daniel Poulter: Let me bring the hon. Gentleman back to planet earth for a while—[Interruption.] He should have listened to the answer I gave a little earlier about allowing for flexibility in pay frameworks. Some degree of regional pay was introduced by the previous Government in “Agenda for Change”. On principle, then, the previous Government, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, including the former Secretary of State, were supportive of regional pay. However, on the current negotiations and discussions, we would like to see a collaborative relationship between employers, unions and employees in the NHS at the NHS Staff Council to make sure that we maintain national pay frameworks as long as they remain fit for purpose.

Tony Baldry: Why should there be an assumption that local pay will lead to lower pay in the public sector? In a constituency such as mine, where the unemployment rate is below 2%, local pay could quite possibly lead to higher pay in the public sector so that people are attracted to it.

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. It was the previous Government who, through the “Agenda for Change”, gave flexibility to NHS trusts to allow some employers to pay a 30% premium in areas with workplace shortages.

Lilian Greenwood: At a time when NHS budgets are under exceptional pressure, my constituents simply do not understand why the Government are so intent on pushing trusts to divert money away from patient care and into wasteful local pay bargaining. Is there not a risk that Nottingham’s excellent NHS hospitals and community services will be unable to recruit and retain the best staff if regional pay results in cuts to their salary scales?

Daniel Poulter: The Government are supportive of the idea, endorsed by the previous Government, that local pay flexibility allows additional rewards to be paid to staff in areas with workplace shortages, as my hon. Friend
	the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) just made clear. The Government are supporting the unions, employers and employees, as the NHS Staff Council, in coming together to try to agree how we need to modify the “Agenda for Change” and other agreements to ensure that they remain fit for their purpose of protecting employees.

Intensity-modulated Radiotherapy

Julian Huppert: What assessment his Department has made of the extent to which the cancer radiotherapy innovation fund will increase access to intensity-modulated radiotherapy.

Anna Soubry: The £15 million radiotherapy innovation fund is designed to ensure that from April 2013 radiotherapy centres will be ready to deliver intensity-modulated radiotherapy to all patients who need it. We are working with professional bodies and Cancer Research UK to develop a programme, including support visits, training and criteria for allocating the fund.

Julian Huppert: I thank the Minister for that answer and she will know that the UK’s first clinical trials of IMRT were carried out at Addenbrooke’s hospital in Cambridge, funded by the Breast Cancer Campaign, and showed reduced side effects and improved cosmetic outcomes. How many breast cancer patients a year does she think could benefit from IMRT and how will she ensure that they all manage to do so?

Anna Soubry: We know that 9% of all radical radiotherapy treatment should be delivered using forward-planned IMRT and that that should be used for and will benefit breast cancer patients. A survey of radiotherapy centres was carried out in preparation for the launch of the new fund that showed that 26% of radical activity was being delivered using forward-planned IMRT. The hon. Gentleman might say that that does not exactly answer his question and I am more than happy to make further inquiries and, if necessary, to write to him in full detail.

Andrew Miller: What is the Minister doing to ensure that such investments are equally accessible to people across the UK?

Anna Soubry: That is important. I have recognised in the short time in which I have been in my post that there is often disparity across the country and in certain areas, frankly, the service is not as good as that in others. One of our aims is to ensure that regardless of where someone lives they will get good treatment from the NHS.

Multiple Learning Difficulties (School Provision)

Chi Onwurah: What steps he has taken to ensure that children with profound multiple learning difficulties have their health care needs met while at school.

Daniel Poulter: We are working with the Department for Education to introduce integrated commissioning of education, health and social care for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities. This will ensure that children with profound multiple learning difficulties can get the care they need while at school.

Chi Onwurah: I recently visited Hadrian school in my constituency, which caters for children with severe learning difficulties and profound and multiple learning difficulties. I saw fantastic teachers and carers doing fantastic work with fantastic children, but I also saw in the reception classes that more children with more severe health needs were entering the school. What guarantees can the Minister offer that funding will be in place for those children in five or 10 years so that Hadrian school can plan now for their needs?

Daniel Poulter: The hon. Lady makes a good point. We know that the Government are putting more money into the NHS. However, this not just about putting in more money, but about how we deliver care in a more joined-up way. At the moment, education works too much in its own silo and the NHS works in another. The Government’s new commissioning arrangements will follow the more joined-up approach that we need to take properly to meet the needs of children with learning disabilities in the round. That must be a good way forward in properly joining up education and health care.

Topical Questions

Mark Spencer: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: It is my privilege to serve as Health Secretary responsible for the national health service. I have identified four priority areas where I hope over the next two years to make the most progress. They are improving mortality rates for the major killer diseases so that we are among the best in Europe, which we are not at the moment; improving the way we look after people with long-term conditions such as diabetes and asthma; improving the way we deal with dementia, both as a national health service and as a society; and, perhaps most important of all, transforming the attitude to care throughout the NHS and social care systems so that the quality of care is seen to be as important as the quality of treatment.

Mark Spencer: What assistance can the Secretary of State give to the newly appointed chairman of the Sherwood Forest Hospitals Trust as he begins to wrestle with the private finance initiative signed under the previous Government and attempts to find repayments in excess of £40 million a year?

Jeremy Hunt: The first thing I would say to my hon. Friend about Sherwood Forest is that I know everyone in the House will join me in saying that our hearts go out to the families of the women who were misdiagnosed for breast cancer. We expect the local NHS to come up with a serious package of measures to make sure that that kind of thing cannot happen again.
	My hon. Friend is right to talk about PFI. We inherited an appalling scandal. In order to tackle the PFI debts of just seven institutions, we are having to put aside £1.5 billion over the next 25 years, but we are working with all institutions to deal with this appalling debt overhang.

Diane Abbott: We know that the Secretary of State’s views on abortion do not have a religious basis, so does he care to share with the House the scientific evidence to support his view that abortion time limits should come all the way down to 12 weeks?

Jeremy Hunt: Four years ago I voted with my conscience, as I am sure she voted with hers, but I did so as a Back-Bench Member of Parliament and we have made it clear that it is not the policy of the Government to change the abortion law. My job as Health Secretary is to implement the elected will of the House, which voted in 2008 not to reduce the abortion time limits.

Annette Brooke: What steps is the Department taking to tackle the growing incidence of drug-resistant cases of TB, which increased by more than a quarter in the past year?

Anna Soubry: We are funding TB Alert to raise public and professional awareness of TB. We also expect the NHS organisations and their partners to ensure early detection, treatment completion and co-ordinated action to prevent and control TB. The Health Protection Agency maintains diligent monitoring of all types of TB and the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence also includes specific guidance on treatment and rapid contact tracing of people in contact with any type of drug-resistant TB.

Helen Jones: Before the last election, the Prime Minister promised a “bare knuckle fight” to save district general hospitals and promised that they would be enhanced. Now that we know that the board of St Helens and Knowsley hospitals is looking at a merger with Warrington and Halton to solve its problems, can the Minister give the House an unconditional assurance that no services at Warrington will be downgraded or removed, whether that merger goes ahead or not?

Daniel Poulter: There was an option to discuss this issue at the board meeting on 29 August—not of her hospital trust but of the Halton hospital trust—because the Halton trust is looking to achieve foundation status. So I can reassure her that the services at Warrington hospital are safe.

John Redwood: What is the administration overhead cost to the NHS and the Department this year and how does it compare with 2009-10?

Jeremy Hunt: I will get back to my right hon. Friend with the exact details, but the impact of the reforms that the Government have introduced will cut administration costs by a third across the whole NHS, leading to net savings of £4 billion during this Parliament.

Jack Dromey: Last Wednesday, the Prime Minister told the House that Kettering hospital was safe. The following day—Thursday—evidence in a document leaked to the Corby Telegraph said that 515 of the 658 beds in the hospital could be lost. Will the Secretary of State ask the Prime Minister to come before the House to put right the statement he made to the House, but will the people of Corby not conclude that whatever the Prime Minister says, the national health service will never be safe in Tory hands?

Jeremy Hunt: What a disgraceful comment. We do not need the Prime Minister to come before the House because I can tell the hon. Gentleman that Kettering hospital is safe, and that it is totally irresponsible scaremongering by the Labour party in the run-up to a by-election to suggest anything else.

Rehman Chishti: Will the Secretary of State join me in welcoming the progress that has been made to reduce mixed-sex wards and improve patient privacy at Medway Maritime hospital in my constituency?

Daniel Poulter: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the Government’s success in reducing mixed-sex wards not just in his hospital but throughout the NHS—we inherited a very different situation from the previous Government. Medway has been a pioneer in that area and my hon. Friend is right to commend the hospital and I put on record my thanks for all that it is doing.

Paul Goggins: Will the Secretary of State take a close personal interest in the proposed changes to the NHS in Trafford? Given the uncertainty about alternative accident and emergency provision, and indeed the delays in commissioning community services, will he ensure that any final decisions are deferred so that they can be considered as part of the wider review planned for NHS services across Greater Manchester?

Jeremy Hunt: I should like to reassure the right hon. Gentleman that I take a close personal interest in all reconfigurations because they tend to end up on my desk. In this case, I encourage him to take part in the consultation for Trafford general, which will go on until the end of the month, but I remind him that the Government have put in place four important tests for any major reconfiguration. We must be satisfied that those tests are passed before we approve any reconfiguration, and those include the support of local doctors.

Nick de Bois: As breast cancer action month comes to an end, recent research by Breast Cancer Campaign has shown that 76% of women would like more information about breast cancer signs and symptoms. What steps are the Government taking to encourage early diagnosis of breast cancer?

Anna Soubry: Achieving early diagnosis of symptomatic cancer is key to our ambition to save an additional 5,000 lives a year by 2014-15. As I explained in an earlier answer, we are providing more than £450 million in funding over the spending review period to support
	early diagnosis. From January to mid March 2013, we will be running a regional pilot of our previously tested local campaign on breast cancer symptoms in women over 70. We are targeting those women because that is an area where, unfortunately, survival rates are particularly poor.

John Healey: Since his promotion, the Secretary of State has said little and, I assume, read a lot. Did his starter pack include details of the Prime Minister’s promise:
	“This year, and the year after, and the year after that, the money going into the NHS will actually increase in real terms.”?
	Did it include Treasury figures that show there has been a real terms cut each year since the election? What is he saying to NHS staff and patients who see the cuts and see the Prime Minister’s big NHS promise being broken?

Jeremy Hunt: May I just remind the right hon. Gentleman that there has been a real terms increase in NHS spending? That contrasts rather starkly with what was said by the Health Secretary under the previous Government. He said it would be irresponsible to increase health spending in this Parliament. We ignored that advice and NHS patients are benefiting.

John Stevenson: The food labelling consultation closed in August. Could the Minister indicate when the Government response is likely to be issued and confirm that the Government will not bring in unnecessary burdens on the food industry over and above those set out in European regulation?

Anna Soubry: This is an area that is important to the Government’s work. At this stage it is important to make sure that we do not over-regulate but that we work with industry and manufacturers. The four Governments across the United Kingdom will shortly issue a statement about front-of-pack nutrition labelling, and we expect to publish the formal response to this year’s consultation within the next few weeks.

Andy Slaughter: The excellent children’s heart surgery unit at the Royal Brompton hospital will be pleased that a full review has been announced. Why does it have to report within four months, including the Christmas period, and why were previous referrals by both Brompton and Leeds refused? Will the review be full and impartial or not?

Jeremy Hunt: It will be a totally impartial and very thorough review. This is an extremely important decision, and that is why I asked the Independent Reconfiguration Panel to take the time that it needs to do the review properly; that is the least that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents would want.

Andrew George: In order to get the Health and Social Care Act 2012 through this House, the Government gave explicit assurances that private companies could not cherry-pick the easiest procedures and patients, yet a recent letter from David Flory, the deputy chief executive of the NHS, back-pedals on the Government’s position, and shows that the Government are dependent purely on guidance. What can the Government do to put a bit of backbone back into that important policy?

Jeremy Hunt: May I reassure my hon. Friend that we are absolutely committed to the “no cherry-picking” provisions of the Act? We think that we have found the right way to achieve that in the NHS, and I will write to him to explain exactly how we will do that.

Valerie Vaz: Given the apparent increase in spending in the NHS and the £4 billion surplus, will the Secretary of State look at lifting the pay restraint for lower-paid workers, to increase morale and boost productivity?

Jeremy Hunt: The £12 billion increase in spending on the NHS under this Government, which the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) thought was irresponsible, means that we will be able to do a lot more for patients, but there is also rising demand. If we do not have that pay restraint, we will not be able to meet the needs of an ageing population.

Justin Tomlinson: What specific consideration is being given to matching the annual growth funding uplift to actual changes in population? That is essential to my constituency, which has high population growth.

Anna Soubry: It is my understanding that that is already part of the formula, but my hon. Friend makes a good point, and I am sure that he joins me in wanting to make sure that the formulas are fair, so that we reduce health inequalities. I am happy to discuss the issue with him further.

Nick Smith: The Public Accounts Committee says that 11 of the 144 foundation trusts across England are now in serious financial difficulty. What contingency funding is in place for those trusts, to protect patients?

Jeremy Hunt: We have a clearly set out programme for all those trusts, to make sure that they get back to the proper financial controls and proper governance structures that they need. We do not want to get into the business of bailing them out; we want them to stand on their own two feet. That is the vision of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003, passed by the hon. Gentleman’s party when it was in government.

David Tredinnick: Will my right hon. Friend extend the scope of personal budgets? They help not only patients, giving them wider choice, but carers, allowing them to leave their post.

Norman Lamb: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point. This is all about giving power to patients. Personal budgets have already been very successful in social care, and there are pilots under way in health care; the indications are that they are proving very successful.

Jim Shannon: The NHS has a responsibility for all patients in ill health, especially those who are elderly. Is the Minister aware of the information released last week that 3,000 general practitioners have drawn up a list of 7,000 patients who have less than a year to live—in other words, whose level of care is in
	question? Will the Minister condemn that list and take every possible step to ensure that every patient gets NHS care, irrespective of age?

Norman Lamb: The whole purpose of that approach is to ensure that patients get appropriate care at the end of their life. There is very strong consensus supporting that approach, including on the part of Marie Curie Cancer Care and Age UK. It is really important that all GPs and others involved in the care of people at the end of their life engage fully with the patient and the patient’s loved ones. That is the right approach.

Mel Stride: My right hon. Friend will know that in this country, over 1,000 people a year die as a consequence of asthma. We have one of the highest prevalences of asthma in the world. Will he outline to the House what action we will take to get those mortality rates down?

Jeremy Hunt: We are doing a lot of work on the outcomes strategy that will directly impact on asthma sufferers. As part of that work—we are as concerned as my hon. Friend is about this—we are looking at every single asthma death in a 12-month period, starting from this February, to try to understand better the causes of mortality, because we need to make very rapid progress.

Stephen McCabe: Further to the answer that the Minister of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), why do the Government not makeit a criminal offence for those who recruit staff on the cheap not to bother checking employees’ employment records, qualifications or criminal records? Surely they are putting people’s lives at risk.

Norman Lamb: I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I am looking at the whole issue very closely. It seems to me that the fundamental point is to ensure that the people in charge at the corporate level are held to account for failures of care. We are very serious about ensuring that that happens.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: I am sorry to disappoint colleagues, but we must move on.

David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been in the House since 1987; he knows perfectly well that points of order come after statements, not before them. I feel certain that he was just teasing the House and me.

Bovine TB and Badger Control

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Secretary Paterson.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Owen Paterson: I am delighted that my presence has received such a welcome.
	Bovine TB is the most pressing animal health problem in the UK. The importance of the epidemic for our cattle farmers, their families and their communities cannot be overemphasised. This was once a disease isolated to small pockets of the country; it has now spread extensively through the west of England and Wales. The number of new cases has doubled every nine years. Last year, TB led to the slaughter of 26,000 cattle in England at a cost of nearly £100 million. In the past 10 years, bovine TB has cost the taxpayer £500 million. It is estimated that this will rise to £1 billion over the next decade if the disease is left unchecked.
	The task of managing bovine TB and bringing it under control is difficult and complex. The Government are committed to using all the tools at their disposal and to continuing to develop new ones as a package of measures to tackle the disease. In high-risk areas, herds are tested annually and any cattle that test positive are slaughtered. Restrictions on cattle movements have been further strengthened to reduce the chance of disease spreading from cattle to cattle. Only last week, we announced plans for a new surveillance testing regime and stricter cattle movement controls. We also continue to look at ways to improve the testing of cattle for TB.
	Research in this country over the past 15 years has demonstrated that cattle and badgers can transmit the disease to each other; culling badgers can lead to a reduction of the disease in cattle if it is carried out over a large enough area and for a sufficient length of time. That is why we believe that, based on the best available evidence, culling badgers to control TB can make a significant contribution.
	It is crucial that we get this right. The National Farmers Union has taken the lead on behalf of the farming industry to plan and organise the pilot culls. It has been working tirelessly over the past few months, signing up farmers and landowners in the pilot areas and ensuring that contractors are property trained. I have been immensely impressed by the effort, commitment and determination that have been demonstrated by farmers in the two pilot areas. I am also most grateful to the police in the two areas for their support.
	The exceptionally bad weather this summer has put a number of pressures on our farmers and caused significant problems. Protracted legal proceedings and the request of the police to delay the start until after the Olympics and Paralympics have meant that we have moved beyond the optimal time for delivering an effective cull. We should have begun in the summer. In addition to these problems, the most recent fieldwork has revealed that badger numbers in the two areas are significantly higher than previously thought, which only highlights the scale of the problem we are dealing with.
	Evidence suggests that at least 70% of the badgers in the areas must be removed. This is based on the results of the randomised badger culling trial so that we can be confident that culling will reduce TB in cattle. Despite a greatly increased effort over the past few days and weeks, the farmers delivering this policy have concluded that they cannot be confident that it will be possible to remove enough badgers based on these higher numbers and considering the lateness of the season. It would be wrong to go ahead if those on the ground cannot be confident of removing at least 70% of the populations.
	Today I have received a letter from the president of the NFU, on behalf of the companies co-ordinating the culls, explaining why they do not feel that the culls can go ahead this year and requesting that they be postponed until next summer. In these circumstances, it is the right thing to do, and as they are the people who have to deliver this policy on the ground and work within the science, I respect their decision. I have placed a copy of the letter in the Library of both Houses.
	By starting the pilots next summer, we can build on the work that has already been done and ensure that the cull will conform to the scientific criteria and evidence base. I know that this will be very disappointing for many, particularly those farmers in the two pilot areas, but I fully support the decision of the NFU to delay the start of culling operations.
	I must emphasise that there is no change to the Government’s policy We remain absolutely committed to it, but we must ensure that we work with the NFU to get the delivery right. We also remain committed to our wider TB eradication programme and to continuing to strengthen it, so that we can move towards our goal of a TB-free England. Vaccination is another tool and one that we would all like to be able to deploy more widely. Unfortunately, we are not there yet in terms of its development or practicality. If we had a viable and legal cattle vaccine, we would be using it. It will, however, be some years before this is the case and neither we nor the industry can afford to wait that long. It is for this reason that we must look at all the options.
	The Government are determined to tackle bovine TB by all the means available to us. Now, in the next few months, we will ensure that the pilot culls can be implemented effectively, in the best possible conditions, with the right resources. Having looked at all the evidence over many years, I am utterly convinced that badger control is the right thing to do, and indeed the higher than expected badger numbers only serve to underline the need for urgent action. I remain fully committed to working with the farming industry to ensure that the pilot culls can be delivered effectively, safely and humanely next summer. I commend this statement to the House.

Mary Creagh: I begin by welcoming the Secretary of State to his post and thank him for advance sight of his statement.
	Another day, another U-turn, announced first to the “Today” programme and now to Parliament. Labour has warned the Government for two years that the badger cull was bad for farmers, bad for taxpayers and bad for wildlife. In addition, the Government’s handling of the cull has been incompetent and shambolic. It is right that it has been delayed, but we were not alone.
	Lord Professor John Krebs, the eminent scientist who first suggested that the culling of badgers be tried to tackle bovine TB, described it as a “crazy scheme”. The Government’s own chief scientist, Professor Sir John Beddington, declined to endorse the policy. The free shooting of badgers in some big society badger cull was always a terrible idea. It had never been tried, never measured.Professor John Bourne, who led Labour’s badger cull trials, called it an “untested and risky approach”.
	The cull would cost farmers more than it saved them, put huge strain on the police and spread bovine TB in the short term as badgers move out of cull areas. It would cost half a million pounds a year to police per area, and all for a 16% reduction in bovine TB over nine years. Bovine TB is a terrible disease for farmers, their families and their communities, which is why we, when in government—[ Interruption. ] That is why we ran the cull trials to see whether culling made a difference—

Mr Speaker: Order. There is too much noise coming from both sides of the House. Mr Kawczynski, I have had reason to indicate this to you before, but you must calm down. I think that you need to go on an anger management course, man. [Interruption. ] Order. Get a grip.

Mary Creagh: Bovine TB is a terrible disease, but the Secretary of State’s cull was never going to be a silver bullet. Then, last Thursday, we saw the first signs that the badger cull was shaping up to be another Government disaster. As Ministers went to ground, the Secretary of State’s own press office told “Channel 4 News” that the policy was being scrapped, but an hour later they rang back—it was unscrapped. To have to announce one U-turn may be regarded as misfortune, but two U-turns in one afternoon looks like carelessness, even for a Government as weak and incompetent as this one.
	What was the reason for the wobble? I had asked some parliamentary questions, and Ministers’ answers revealed some awkward facts. My first basic question was how many badgers there were in each cull area. The answer was that the Government
	“have yet to issue definitive target figures for the two areas”.—[Official Report, 17 October 2012; Vol. 551, c. 296W.]
	The cull is predicated on killing at least 70% of badgers in an area. How could it proceed when Ministers did not know how many animals there were? We had said all along that the cull was a shot in the dark, and here was the proof. It was that admission, two days before the cull was due to start, that meant DEFRA was wide open to a judicial review for being in breach of the law. The Government’s own best estimate of badger numbers was far higher than previously estimated, making both culls more expensive than forecast. That would mean more expense for farmers and increasing the contingency fund, the bond that farmers are required to lodge with Natural England. Why did Ministers not ask how many badgers farmers needed to kill before this whole fiasco started?
	What sort of announcement is the Minister making today? Is it like the forests U-turn, when they pulled the plug and then set up an independent panel to kick it into the long grass forever, leaving just enough cover to save the Prime Minister face; or is it like the infamous Health and Social Care Bill, when the Prime Minister pressed the stop button, waited for things to calm down
	and then carried on regardless? Is this delay a proper U-turn or a pretend U-turn? I think that the country deserves to be told.
	We welcome the tougher measures on biosecurity that the Secretary of State announced last Friday. He says the cull will start again next summer. He has blamed the weather and the police, yet his own colleague the Home Secretary said that the cull must not go ahead during the Olympics and Paralympics. What happens if the weather is bad next year? What estimate has he made of the impact on the tourism industry of a cull next June? Does he expect MPs and the public to believe him when he says that the cull will happen next summer? If it does not take place, is there not a risk that his Department will be pursued for costs by farmers left out of pocket as a result of his incompetence? Is not the truth that the Prime Minister yanked him back from his festival of fromage and fizz in Paris last night and told him it was game over? Who exactly is in charge?
	After months of agonising, with hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money having been spent on consultations, counting badgers, training marksmen and issuing licences, and after thousands have been spent by farmers setting up companies, we have had another U-turn from this incompetent Government. They have spent two years puffing life into a policy that should never have left the ministerial red box. After just six weeks in his post, the Secretary of State has discovered that DEFRA is filled with elephant traps for the unwary. With forests, circus animals and now the badger cull, he has completed a hat trick unmatched by any other Department.
	Labour has always said that the badger cull was bad for taxpayers, bad for farmers, and bad for wildlife. This Government are out of touch with the nation. This cull should have been stopped months ago. Today we have the right decision for all the wrong reasons. The cull has been stopped because of the Government’s endemic incompetence. They should have listened to the scientists, the charities and Labour Members, and made policy based on the evidence instead of twisting the evidence to fit their policy. Once again, Ministers present the House with a disaster entirely of their own making. Once again, it is farmers and taxpayers who are left counting the cost.

Owen Paterson: I thank the hon. Lady for her kind words in welcoming me to my place, but it was pretty thin stuff, wasn’t it, Mr Speaker?
	Let us start with Professor Lord Krebs, whom the hon. Lady quoted. He confirmed the policy when he said in April last year at a meeting of independent scientific experts:
	“The science base generated from the…Randomised Badger Culling Trial shows that proactive badger culling as conducted in the trial resulted in an overall beneficial effect compared with ‘survey only’ (no cull) areas on reducing new confirmed cattle herd breakdowns which is still in evidence 5½ years after the final annual proactive cull.”
	The hon. Lady then touched on the comments of the chief scientist, Sir John Beddington, but failed to say that his recent quote in full is this:
	“The proposed pilot culls differ from the RBCT in a number of ways. Additional biosecurity aimed at reducing perturbation effects, any predictions as to the efficacy of the culls will be accompanied by uncertainties. However, if the results were similar to those of
	the RBCT we might expect a 12 to 16% reduction in bovine TB over an area of 150 km sq after nine years relative to a similar unculled area. It will be important to monitor the results and to subject them to rigorous statistical analysis to assess humaneness, safety and efficacy.”
	That is exactly what the pilots were for: they were the logical conclusion—[ Interruption. ]

Mr Speaker: Order. I told Mr Kawczynski that he was making too much noise and he accepted his fate with good grace. Members on the Opposition Front Bench must not yell at the Secretary of State as he is answering questions. The right hon. Gentleman must be heard. Let us hear it from Mr Secretary Paterson.

Owen Paterson: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
	The previous Government took forward the RBCT in a whole series of trials and then stopped and decided to do nothing. They presided over a horrendous increase in this disgusting disease. We have taken the logic of the RBCT and extended it, which means conducting it over a larger area with hard boundaries and a more efficient system of culling. We are wholly conforming to the science and to the advice that we have taken. However, as I explained in my statement, at this late stage of the season, because of the various delays and because of the larger numbers than had previously been planned for, the NFU has come to me requesting a delay. I should like to reassure the hon. Lady that this policy is absolutely intact. We will work with the NFU over the coming months and from next summer we will deliver pilot culls that will show the efficacy of what we are intending to do.

Mr Speaker: I call Mr Jim Paice. [ Interruption. ] Sir James Paice—I apologise profusely to the right hon. Gentleman.

James Paice: Apology accepted, Mr Speaker, with good grace.
	This is clearly very disappointing news for everybody, including the farmers, who had planned for and expected our getting to grips with this disease as quickly as possible. May I endorse my right hon. Friend’s comments about these being pilots? We have always recognised that in some areas they differed from the original RBCT measures, and that was the reason for having the two pilots—to see whether those differentiations still produced the same results. The increase in numbers to which he refers is surprising—or the fact that it is a problem is surprising—given that most people who live in these areas should have been well aware, as most country people are, of the massive increase in badgers.
	Finally, does my right hon. Friend agree that science shows that if the population of any species significantly increases in density, disease spreads more quickly as it is more likely to sustain itself? This increase in the badger population therefore increases the need to carry out the control.

Owen Paterson: I thank my right hon. Friend and commend him for the tremendous work that he did in his job as Minister of State. Wherever I have been in recent weeks, many, many people across the industry
	have paid him great tribute for the sterling work that he did. I commend him for taking this policy on; it was not easy.
	My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The two pilots were the logical extension of the trials conducted under the previous Government, which stopped dead once they had finished. The next logical step is to go on to a larger geographical area and use a more efficient method of culling. He is absolutely right to say that the real lesson from these very significantly higher numbers is that the disease will be prevalent among the badger population and spreads more quickly in a dense population. This is a problem that we have to grip. It is no good criticising from the outside without coming up with a policy.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. A very large number of hon. and right hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. I am keen to accommodate them, as this is a hugely significant matter, but if I am to do so, economy from Back Benchers and Front Benchers alike would greatly assist.

Meg Munn: In July 2011, Natural England estimated that there would be 3,300 badgers in each 350 sq km cull area, using data from the randomised badger cull trial, yet DEFRA used the figure of only 1,300 badgers for each 350 sq km area. Why did DEFRA get the figures so badly wrong?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. It will be helpful if I explain the chronology. In September this year Natural England first determined that there were deficiencies in the sett data. Shortly after I took up my post, it set about a detailed sett survey and came up with these very significantly large numbers. We have to respect the science. It is most important that everyone understands this. The simple facts are that with these increased numbers the NFU did not believe that in the later weeks of this year, as it gets more difficult to get out on the ground, it could deliver the 70% figure. The responsible thing to do is to postpone; the easy thing to do would have been to thunder on and not deliver. We have to respect the science; we are being very clear about that. Over the past few days we have discussed this in great depth with the NFU and it is quite clear that despite a big effort in recruiting and a big increase in resources it cannot deliver the 70% figure. It is therefore right not to go ahead for the time being, and we will go ahead next year.

Anne McIntosh: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that farmers in the hotspots will be given all the available legal protection over the coming months, given the uncertainty before the cull can proceed? I welcome the fact that he has confirmed that the science is that of the independent scientific group in 2008. Will he use this pause to make the strongest possible argument within the European Union that the produce of any vaccinated animal, whether vaccinated with the badger bovine TB vaccine or the foot and mouth vaccine, will be legal trade with our European partners?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her question, which touches on security. I want publicly to thank the chief constables and all their staff in the two main areas, who have co-operated a tremendous amount. This has been an extra burden on them in recent weeks. We have worked with them closely and I thank them. They have reassured me at all times that they will ensure that legal protest can go on, but law and order will prevail.
	On vaccination—I am glad that we are getting into this so early in our discussion—the fact is that the current vaccine is only about 50% to 60% effective, while that for smallpox, for example, is well over 95%, so we do not have a very effective vaccine. On my hon. Friend’s point, we have developed a DIVA—differentiation of infected from vaccinated animals—test recently, which differentiates between a vaccinated and a diseased animal, but it is still in the early stages. We would all agree—every single person in this House and those outside—that we would like to press a vaccine button today but, sadly, we do not have one.
	The European authorities are absolutely clear that if we went about a vaccination programme now, before we have an absolutely scientifically clear and evidence-based system of differentiating between diseased and vaccinated, we would not be able to export any cattle products. We are talking about a trade of billions of pounds. That would be suicide. I am in total agreement with hon. Members who want to see vaccines but, sadly, we are just not there. It is incredibly important that everyone understands that we do not have a button-pressed vaccine today. We are working extremely hard on it. I take on my hon. Friend’s encouragement. I will discuss the issue at the Commission, but at the moment I cannot go to the Commission with a clear, evidence-based programme to use a vaccine.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr Speaker: Order. I always listen to the Secretary of State with the closest possible interest, but I am afraid that we do not have time on this occasion for a treatise in response to each question. We need pithy replies, if possible.

Barry Gardiner: The Secretary of State is right to say that we must address the problem of bovine TB. Will he, therefore, this year, while this delay is in place, use the funding that would have been made available for the cull to improve biosecurity in the cowsheds and byres of farmers, and set minimum standards for biosecurity, which the Krebs report said was a very important element in controlling the disease?

Owen Paterson: I am in agreement with the hon. Gentleman that biosecurity can help, but the problem is that we are dealing with an animal that can get into sheds. When I was in opposition, I went to Michigan and they had clear evidence where they had separated white-tailed deer from cattle herds and invested significantly in fencing off the cattle herds indoors. It is not possible to do that with badgers, because our cattle system has cattle out on the fields, and 1 ml of badger urine yields 300,000 colony-forming units of disease and it takes only 0.001% to infect an animal. That is the problem.
	We have animals out on grass, mixing freely with wild badgers, and that is where the disease is being picked up.

Roger Williams: I draw the attention of hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who was until recently a Minister in the Department, is right. People living in the countryside are not surprised, because they report seeing more badgers more frequently. Does the Secretary of State agree that work should be undertaken on the correlation between the increase in badgers and the increase of bovine TB in the cattle herd?

Owen Paterson: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The evidence is extremely obvious. We can see from 1972 onwards that when there is a big increase in the badger population there is an increase in TB. It is very simple. I do not know of a single country in the western world that does not bear down on disease in wildlife and in cattle.

Caroline Lucas: The Secretary of State said that vaccination is only 60% or 70% effective, but is that not an awful lot more than 16% effective for the cull? Secondly, he said that a cattle vaccination and the DIVA test are years off, but that is not the case—that is not what scientists are telling us. Will he use the money that has so far been earmarked for the cull to bring those vaccines to market as soon as possible? Will he start negotiating now with his EU colleagues to make sure that the DIVA test will mean that we can distinguish between infected and vaccinated cattle and that we can, therefore, continue to export beef?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. We are not yet there with a vaccination programme. If this vaccine is only 50% to 60% effective, a significant number of cattle will be either diseased or, perhaps, vaccinated. Until we can differentiate between them, we cannot go to the Commission and no neighbouring country would want to buy stock from us. This is a real, practical problem. I reassure the hon. Lady that I am as keen as her to get to the position of having a vaccine, and I promise that we will work on this over the next year. We are spending £15.5 million over the next four years on top of the £40-odd million that we spent recently. This is a real priority, but we are not in that position yet.

Edward Leigh: When I was lucky enough to serve on the agriculture committee nearly 20 years ago, I remember the then Chairman saying that we had to have a badger cull in selected areas to deal with this disease. Since then, Governments have been hopelessly indecisive and weak and, as a result, our farming community has undergone untold misery. Will the Secretary of State assure us that he will now get a grip and that he will be swayed only by science and not by emotions, and save our farmers from this terrible disease?

Owen Paterson: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend emphatically that we will stand by this policy. As I have said, there is no country in the western world where
	such policies do not apply. We should consider the situation in New Zealand with possums and that in Australia with buffalo, and look at what every other western European country is doing. A cull is taking place in Ireland as we speak. On Monday I talked to a farmer in Burgundy, where badgers are not protected. There is no other country where they are not bearing down on disease in wildlife and in cattle. We have to do both.

Ian Paisley Jnr: This is probably not the auspicious start that the Secretary of State wanted on the DEFRA Front Bench. No one takes the cull of badgers lightly, but what is the Department’s plan B? The Secretary of State has said, in effect, that over the next 12 months, until next summer, 30,000 cattle will be slaughtered and his Department will have to pick up the bill of £100 million. In Northern Ireland it will be £20 million and a vast amount of cattle will be slaughtered as a result of bovine TB. I hope that we are not witnessing the eradication of the Department’s courage to follow through with a policy that could change things.

Owen Paterson: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that, until we get a grip on this, these horrendous slaughter figures will continue at an horrendous cost and cause horrendous damage to famers’ livelihoods and their families. That is clear, but we have to respect the science. The NFU told me this morning that it cannot achieve the 70% and, if we agree with the science, which states that if we cull less than 70% we provoke perturbation, I have to respect that advice. The hon. Gentleman is from Northern Ireland, so he knows perfectly well the value of a cull. The four counties trial showed a 96% reduction in Donegal. There is no question but that bearing down on wildlife and cattle will eradicate the disease eventually.

James Gray: Farmers across North Wiltshire will be disappointed about the delay—although they will understand it—but so will true wildlife lovers. Will the Secretary of State confirm that even if a workable badger vaccine was available—there probably is not—it would have no effect whatsoever on badgers that are ill? In other words the hundreds of badgers that are ill, underground and dying in agony would not be affected even if a vaccine was available.

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend’s constituents will be as disappointed as mine about this delay and postponement. There is actually an injectable badger vaccine, which was licensed in March last year, but everybody needs to consider the practicality. We have an enormously increased badger population. It is certainly 250,000 to 300,000. An injectable vaccine requires injecting every badger every year and, as I have said on cattle vaccine, it is not possible to cure an animal that is already diseased so, with the deepest respect to the Welsh Government, I am doubtful of the value of that process.

Diana Johnson: Will police forces that have had to commit resources to prepare for the pilots be compensated for the work that they have had to do?

Owen Paterson: Yes. We have made it clear that we will help the police forces that have had to put in extra resources. I talked to all the chief constables of the forces this morning, thanked them personally for their significant effort and the skilful and tactful manner in which they have deployed their teams recently, and I have agreed that we will help them.

Simon Hart: The Secretary of State has made an entirely supportable and practical decision this morning in guaranteeing that this is not a change in policy, but simply a delayed policy. Does he agree that the reaction of Labour Members to his statement will have sent a shiver down the spine of farmers who are watching and will have made them realise that for the Opposition, this is a political issue, not a practical one? So much for one nation!

Owen Paterson: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I did not want to get into a party political argument, but the Labour party’s record in office is shameful. The disease has gone on and on, but after the trials, the Labour Government stopped dead. We are following the logical conclusion of what they set in place. They stopped; we are going on. We are determined that this is the right thing to do.

Bill Esterson: How much compensation will be paid to police forces, as the Secretary of State has just announced?

Owen Paterson: It will be the marginal costs. We will have to discuss that with the relevant forces and come up with a number.

Dan Rogerson: The Secretary of State has rightly said that the Government will continue to tackle all sources of the disease and to look at biosecurity, as well as dealing with the cull. If there are further problems over the next few months with the designated cull areas, will he look at other areas where landowners and farmers might be keen to be part of the cull trial?

Owen Paterson: That is an interesting question. Yes, I will look at that in detail. At the moment, the NFU is probably thinking of carrying on in the two areas where it has put in such a lot of work and preparation, but I am open to looking at other areas. We want to pull off two pilots that show that this system, in a bigger area and with a more efficient system of culling, does work and does reduce TB.

Chris Williamson: Ministers constantly lecture us about the need for their counter-productive austerity measures, so how can the Secretary of State justify earmarking £250,000 for post-mortems on dead badgers following the cull? Is that not a colossal waste of money and an example of an omnivore-shambles?

Owen Paterson: What a ludicrous question. The attitude of some Opposition Members is absolutely tearful. We are heading towards a bill of £1 billion.

Gary Streeter: I commend the Secretary of State for acting so decisively today, following the change of heart by the NFU. Although dairy farmers in south Devon will, of course, be disappointed, they will understand it, provided that he continues to say, day after day, that this is just a delay, not a change of policy, and that the cull will take place in 2013.

Owen Paterson: I am most grateful for my hon. Friend’s support. As he knows, when I was the shadow spokesman, I went down to his part of the world and I asked 600 parliamentary questions. That made me determined that this was the right thing to do. I wholly commend the last Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), who did great work on putting this policy into practice. We are determined to push it through, because it is the only way in which we will save our cattle industry.

Shabana Mahmood: Will the Secretary of State say how many firearms licences have been issued by the police for the culls, and at what cost?

Owen Paterson: I can give the hon. Lady an accurate reply after the statement. The team in each pilot area is made up of roughly 60 people and the firearms licences had to be amended. I am happy to get back to her with the exact number.

Bill Wiggin: Cattle owners like me will respect the Secretary of State for taking the advice of the NFU. However, will he take this opportunity to look at the compensation tables, which are causing so much misery to cattle owners who are receiving less than it costs to replace their cattle?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend touches on a fraught area. I have cattle breeders in my patch who are producing the most wonderful pedigree cattle of the highest standard and getting adequate compensation is a constant problem. At the moment, we are paying the market rate, but I am happy to discuss the matter with him.

Robert Flello: Will the Secretary of State take the opportunity that this postponement allows to meet the 30 leading scientists, including vets and animal disease scientists, who think that their science is correct and that the NFU’s science, on which the Secretary of State is relying, is not correct?

Owen Paterson: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, but he is just wrong. This is not the NFU’s science. The science that the policy is based on comes from the main trials that his Government put into practice. It is the logical conclusion of those trials. I quoted Lord Krebs and I have a meeting with him this week or next week, so I am very happy to meet scientists. We are following on from the logic of the science-based evidence that has been produced.

Richard Drax: Roughly how many people have been threatened in the two areas, because there have been a variety of reports about that?
	If he can confirm a number, that would be useful to the House. In his view, have such people been properly protected by the police?

Owen Paterson: I am happy to reassure my hon. Friend that the number is tiny. I strongly commend, once again, the skill and tact of the police forces, which have maintained law and order in a dignified manner, under difficult conditions.

Margaret Ritchie: As the Secretary of State knows, I represent a rural constituency in Northern Ireland. What discussions did he have with Ministers in the devolved Administrations yesterday in the margins of the EU Council of Ministers on agriculture matters? Will he confirm what tools are at the Government’s disposal to ensure that our farming industry is protected?

Owen Paterson: I am sorry to inform the hon. Lady that I did not get to Luxembourg yesterday because my flight was cancelled.

Kevin Brennan: By whom?

Owen Paterson: By the fog. If Members want a technical update, the flight was delayed and then cancelled. There was only one, so sadly I did not get to the Agriculture Council and I did not have a chance to put the very pertinent points that the hon. Lady mentioned. If she looks over the border, she will see that in the Republic of Ireland there is a reactive cull. As I said, the four counties trial showed a 96% reduction in Donegal.

Daniel Kawczynski: As a neighbouring Shropshire MP, the Secretary of State will know what devastation bovine TB has caused in Shropshire, with more than 2,000 cattle slaughtered last year alone. Will he give an assurance that if the trials are successful next summer, other parts of the United Kingdom, such as Shropshire, will be able to move forward quickly to a cull?

Owen Paterson: I commend my neighbour from Shrewsbury and Atcham for his stalwart support on this matter and for the very public stance that he has taken. The answer is emphatically yes. I want the two pilots to go ahead and to conform to the science. I am confident that they will prove to be safe and efficacious, and that we will see a reduction in TB. That is what we want to see rolled out across the country.

Kerry McCarthy: On 8 May, I wrote to the then farming Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), to highlight how complex it was to assess the number of badgers in the pilot areas and received very glib reassurances in response. Why is the Secretary of State now telling us that it was only in late September that concerns about those numbers came to light?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question, but I did answer it earlier. It appeared in September that Natural England was not happy with the figures that had been provided locally. That is why it asked FERA to do a full survey, which took some time. That shows how deadly serious we are in respecting the science. It would not have been right to go ahead on the
	basis of numbers that Natural England believed to be inaccurate, so it was right to take more time and to do a thorough survey, and that came up with dramatically larger numbers.

Neil Parish: Dairy and beef farmers in my constituency are desperate because of TB. They have been cleaning their cattle for years. There now needs to be clean wildlife to stop the disease spreading. Can I have the absolute assurance of the Secretary of State that the cull will go ahead next year?

Owen Paterson: I am entirely in agreement with my hon. Friend. We want to see healthy wildlife—healthy badgers in this case—living alongside healthy cattle. We will achieve that only if we drive through the two pilots and extend them across the country, as I have just assured my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski).

David Anderson: Will the Secretary of State explain why there was a delay to avoid a clash with the Olympics and Paralympics, and what are the ideal weather conditions for killing badgers?

Owen Paterson: My predecessor was very responsible, because the Government had a request from the police and discussed it with the Home Secretary. There was obviously a huge amount of discussion about security before the Olympics and Paralympics. The whole nation wanted the games to be a success, and of course they were the most outstanding success. It was quite right not to burden the police with an extra task, so I think my colleagues were completely responsible.
	The hon. Gentleman makes a good point about the weather. We have obviously had the most extraordinarily wet year, which has made it difficult to get out on the land and difficult to get vehicles out. There is also a technical problem, which mainly applies to Gloucestershire. The maize is still standing, and part of what needs to be done is the cutting of maize, because otherwise badgers come and take the cobs. That is rather more a Gloucestershire problem than a Somerset one, but all in all, he must understand the practical difficulties of getting on the land in a very wet year.

Duncan Hames: It is to the NFU’s credit that it has decided not to conduct a cull this year in circumstances in which it could not be confident that it would be effective in reducing the incidence of bovine TB. What are the next steps in developing the DIVA test to the point where it is widely acknowledged to be conclusive?

Owen Paterson: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s commendation of the NFU. It would have been quite wrong to go ahead when it was not confident of reaching the 70% target and could have made the position worse.
	I was discussing the DIVA test with my senior scientists this morning, and we are determined to go full bore on it. There is agreement throughout the House that in an ideal world we would have a vaccine and a DIVA test,
	and we could then go to the Commission. I am keen that we look at the new technological developments as soon as we can.

Angela Smith: How many discussions has the Secretary of State already had with European colleagues and the Commission to lobby for the DIVA test and cattle vaccination to be rolled out in the UK?

Owen Paterson: We have been in regular discussions with the European Commission, which is very supportive of our position. Only recently DG-SANCO—the directorate-general for health and consumers—stated:
	“There is no scientific evidence to demonstrate that badger vaccination will reduce the incidence of TB in cattle. However there is considerable evidence to support the removal of badgers in order to improve the TB status of both badgers and cattle.
	UK politicians must accept their responsibility to their own farmers and taxpayers as well as to the rest of the EU and commit to a long-term strategy that is not dependent on elections.”

Tony Baldry: I am sure my right hon. Friend would agree that it would be preferable if the House could move forward on the basis of consensus on this issue. During the pause, will he undertake to meet the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) on Privy Council terms and see whether she has a single positive, substantive suggestion as to how we should tackle bovine TB? The House did not hear a single suggestion from her today.

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am happy to talk to anyone on the subject. We need to resolve it. We cannot go on carting off 26,000 cattle a year at a cost of nearly £100 million. We have to work together, and I am very happy to work with the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) if she is prepared to listen to me.

Clive Efford: I believe that the plan was ill-conceived from the outset, but today’s announcement was not about the science, it was about incompetence. The Government have had plenty of time, and this is not an uncontroversial issue. It has been scrutinised to death from this side and that, yet they came up with the figures on how many badgers there are very late in the process. What we need a cull of is Ministers who waste public money—we have had the west coast main line, and now this. How much has been wasted this year, and how much more will the cull cost next year?

Owen Paterson: I will come back to the hon. Gentleman with a full reply in writing on the costs. I can give him a breakdown of what we have spent on compensation, the trials and the vaccine. He needs to understand, from his urban perspective, the absolute devastation that bovine TB causes to our rural communities and those involved in the cattle industry. We have to resolve the problem, and we must face up to the fact that —[Interruption.] Just listen to my answer. We have to bear down on disease in cattle and in wildlife.

Stephen Metcalfe: I am very disappointed by the tone and attitude that the Opposition have adopted on this important issue. I am sure that none of us wants badgers to be
	needlessly or unnecessarily culled, but we have a major problem with bovine TB. Will my right hon. Friend use this pause to build as wide a consensus as possible in the scientific community, which currently says that a cull is the only practical option?

Owen Paterson: I am happy to take up my hon. Friend’s suggestion. I will obviously talk to senior scientists, but I am also keen to drive forward new technologies. We have already discussed the DIVA test, and there is real merit in considering polymerase chain reaction, which I saw being used in Michigan when I was there in 2005. We can also consider the possible use of gamma interferon, which we have seen in other countries. I am definitely open to new ideas, because we have to bear down on this disgusting disease.

Mary Glindon: Three times today the Minister has said that we are not yet there with a vaccine, so will he now focus on fast-tracking a vaccine programme and the DIVA test as the only long-term solution to tackling this devastating disease?

Owen Paterson: I have made it clear that the vaccine is like Sisyphus—it is always out there and we are always reaching for it, but it is always a few years out. Sadly, as of this afternoon, we are not in a position to introduce a vaccination programme, because it is only 50% to 60% effective and we do not yet have a fully worked-out DIVA test to differentiate diseased and vaccinated animals. I sympathise entirely with her pained expression, and I would love to go ahead this afternoon and press a button saying “Vaccine”, but we sadly do not have it yet.

Glyn Davies: Without certainty that the targeted pilot cull would go ahead as the Government announced last year, my right hon. Friend is surely right to postpone it. Will he emphasise to all those who will be involved in next summer’s cull, which must surely go ahead, that the terms of the targeted pilot cull, based on science, will be strictly adhered to?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and neighbour for his supportive comments. Emphatically yes—it is absolutely right that we go ahead next summer, but we must do it within the constraints of the scientific criteria that are laid down. That is what we intend to do.

Nia Griffith: I was not entirely clear about the answer that the Secretary of State gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith). We are certainly pleased to hear about the progress made on the vaccination and the DIVA test, but can he explain exactly what recent talks he has had with European colleagues? When does he think there might be some real progress, and what is he doing to ensure that it is as fast as possible?

Owen Paterson: My right hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice) started talking about the matter two and a half years ago, as soon as we came into government, and he has been in regular contact with European colleagues. I will work with them as closely as possible once we have a practical basis to work on. As I explained to the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), we are sadly just not
	there yet. That obviously has to be an absolute priority, because we have agreement about it not just right across the House but right across the country.

Andrew George: I welcome my right hon. Friend’s decision not to proceed in the current circumstances. Above all, the Government should not take action that risks making the situation worse. Given that he emphasises the importance of science, will he take the opportunity provided by the pause until next summer to review all the science, including that recently commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs itself, which may point to alternative ways of bearing down on this terrible disease?

Owen Paterson: I entirely endorse my hon. Friend’s comment, and during this time we will of course press on many fronts. We have a number of tools in the box, and we are using those that are currently available. As I have touched on, there are new ones coming down the track—PCR, the DIVA test, gamma interferon and others that I would like to investigate with real speed. We cannot just use the current tools, because we are not getting on top of the disease. It is getting worse.

Sheila Gilmore: The Secretary of State’s Department seems to have a bit of a track record of backing off when the pressure gets high. We previously had the experience of the circus animals debate, which was going to be whipped, but suddenly his Department backed off. Many of my constituents will be pleased to see that there is now to be a pause, but will he reassure us that he will look very seriously at the whole issue again, and that he is not just backing off because he does not want the embarrassment of a debate and a vote?

Owen Paterson: The hon. Lady has rather missed the tone of our discussion over the past hour. Having received these higher figures, and after agonising, the National Farmers Union has—I think very responsibly and despite huge pressure from its grass roots—made a decision. I was in Tewkesbury on Wednesday, and there is enormous pressure from those parts of the country where the cattle industry is being devastated by this disease. Despite that pressure, I must respect the NFU which said clearly to me in a final decision that it could not achieve the 70% required. We are all determined to work together within the science, and no one is backing off at all. The NFU has made a rational decision in the light of the new figures and given its current resources and the time available.

Guy Opperman: Fifteen years ago there were hundreds of beef and dairy farmers in Northumberland, but they now number a few dozen. They wholeheartedly support the proposed cull and the action that has been proposed today, albeit with regret. Will the Secretary of State confirm that such farmers will continue to receive the proper financial support that they need and deserve, until this disease is finally vanquished?

Owen Paterson: Emphatically, we want to see an expanding cattle industry and more cattle exports. I should actually be in Paris at the world’s largest food exhibition promoting exports of British beef and dairy products. I assure my hon. Friend that we want to see an expanding cattle industry, but we must get on top of this disease first.

Seema Malhotra: My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) asked how much public money has been spent so far on this misguided cull. Will the Minister confirm what proportion of this year’s expenditure will need to be spent again next year?

Owen Paterson: I cannot give the hon. Lady an exact answer because it obviously depends on how many cattle sadly fall to this disease. All I can say is that we have seen a steadily climbing trend in recent years, and unless we get on top of the disease, we will head towards a bill of £1 billion.

Andrew Jones: My right hon. Friend referred to his visit to Michigan, and there are lessons from Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and France. Will he ensure that the experiences of other countries are taken into account when adopting a strategy to tackle this hideous disease and ensure that we have healthy cattle and healthy badgers living alongside each other?

Owen Paterson: Emphatically, yes. I found my trip to Michigan very inspiring, and I saw the real determination of not only the state Government but the involvement of the Federal Government. They are absolutely determined to bear down on disease, and at the time they were withering in their criticism of the then Labour Government.

Chi Onwurah: Does the Secretary of State believe in evidence-based policy, or policy-based evidence? If it is the former, does he really think that he has more scientific credibility than the former chief scientist, Lord May? May I add that calling the vaccine Sisyphus has not helped the Minister in that?

Owen Paterson: Sorry, perhaps it was Tantalus. I meant that the goal is always rolling away. The Government are completely clear. If the hon. Lady wishes to quote a respected and real expert in this field, let me refer her to Professor Christl Donnelly who surveyed all the evidence in 2010. He said:
	“In the time period from one year after the last proactive cull to 28 August 2011, the incidence of confirmed breakdowns in the proactive culling trial areas was 28 per cent lower than in ‘survey only’ areas and on lands up to 2km outside proactive trial areas”.
	The Government are going on the evidence and the analysis of respected experts in the field.

Tracey Crouch: As a Conservative Member who is against the cull, I welcome the Secretary of State’s announcement today, and it was upsetting to see Labour Members laughing throughout the statement when bovine TB has such devastating effect on our farmers. Will the Secretary of State accept that the proposed cull will reduce BTB by only 16%, and could, if anything, spread and increase the disease across the UK? Will he reconsider his decision to start the cull next year, and instead focus all his efforts on developing and approving a cattle vaccination as soon as possible?

Owen Paterson: I am glad I have a few months to try and swing my hon. Friend round to my point of view, and I am sorry that she does not support it at the moment. I would not dismiss a 16% reduction in bovine TB in the light of a horrendous annual increase—we
	are looking at a 25% increase in the disease in the outlying areas. My hon. Friend, and Opposition Members, keep sniffing at the figure of 16% but, as one member of the farming community said, they would not sniff at a wage increase of 16% and it is a significant number. The Government believe that we will arrest the dramatic increase in the disease, and start to bring it down.

Simon Danczuk: How much public money has been spent so far on this misguided cull?

Owen Paterson: There are a number of figures, but I think I had better write to the hon. Gentleman to give him a proper reply. There will be some figures for the policing, which was touched on, and for work on the cull itself and compensation. I will return to the big figure: we spent nearly £100 million last year, and unless we get a grip on the disease, that will look like a round of drinks compared with the figure of £1 billion to which we are heading.

Andrew Stunell: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. May I remind him that bovine TB is gradually spreading north through Cheshire, and may I draw his attention to the initiative of the Cheshire Wildlife Trust, which says that it will run a voluntary inoculation campaign? That has attracted the attention and support of local farmers. Can we use this pause to get behind that initiative and see whether it provides a way forward?

Owen Paterson: I thank my right hon. Friend. Similarly, in my patch in Shropshire—I was there only 10 days ago with my hon. Friends the Members for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski) and for Ludlow (Mr Dunne)—a trial of injecting badgers is being conducted. Those trials are interesting; we will look with interest at the results, and I commend them. However, is it seriously a practical proposition to inject each of the nation’s 250,000 to 300,000 badgers every year, knowing that we cannot mend a diseased badger? Once a badger has the disease, we cannot get rid of that by injecting it. These are interesting trials; they may have some merit and I am not dismissive of them, but they are not a long-term answer.

Alison McGovern: May I pay tribute to Dr Brian May? He took a great deal of time to brief Members of this House and I thank him for that. Will the Secretary of State comment on what contribution he thinks standards of animal husbandry might make when dealing with this problem, and say what assistance Members of this House can give to farmers in that regard?

Owen Paterson: I think I touched on that in my response to an earlier question. There is no doubt that if we can separate wildlife that have this extraordinary debilitating disease—I mentioned 300,000 colony forming units in 1 ml of badger urine—and if we can keep them out of cattle sheds, that obviously helps. However, we have a grass-based system, and for many months in the year, our cattle are out on grass. It is not realistic to live in the countryside and expect to separate cattle from badgers that are going out and hunting for worms. Badgers’ main food is worms, and they go on the ground where cattle are feeding. The hon. Lady is right to say that
	measures can be taken on farm buildings and it is a nice idea, but that is for the birds when cattle are spending a long time out in the fields, which is where they pick up the disease.

Andrew Percy: The sniggers and chuckles from Opposition Members at the start of this statement were clearly despicable, but there is no doubt that there is a lot of concern among the general public about this issue. Can we ensure that over the next year we nail down the science, and engage with the public as much as possible to make the case in favour of this cull, if that is the Government’s view next year?

Owen Paterson: I thank my hon. Friend for his supportive comments. He is right: we need to win the argument in public and there is a clear argument to be made. I am repeating myself now, but if we look around the world, we see that must bear down on disease in wildlife—as happens in every other western country that I know of—including disease in cattle. That is the only way we will eradicate this disease.

Andrew Miller: May I therefore be helpful to the right hon. Gentleman by asking him to publish all the scientific evidence on which he is relying to come to a decision? Will he agree to open his doors to scientists who take a contrary view, including those who believe the cull is a costly distraction from the nationwide challenge of TB control?

Owen Paterson: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I gave the explanation in my statement but would be happy to send him the numbers—[ Interruption. ] I cannot do any more to publish the information than say it in the House of Commons. Most of the information is already publicly available, but by all means, if he has not had time to find it on the internet, I shall send him a copy.

Mel Stride: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the blame for the vast incidence of bovine TB in this country and the intense misery it causes to my farmers in Devon can be laid substantially at the door of the previous Government, who did nothing over 13 years to have the courage to get a grip on this terrible disease?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is right that the numbers are absolutely horrendous. In 1998, 4,102 reactors were slaughtered; last year, it was 26,000. Unless we get a grip, it will get worse.

Lilian Greenwood: The Secretary of State talks about winning the public debate, but Lord Krebs, the leading scientist in this field, who oversaw the previous Government’s randomised badger cull trial, has described the current Government’s plan as a “crazy scheme”. Why does the Secretary of State not focus resources on vaccination and the biosecurity route that Lord Krebs recommends?

Owen Paterson: We have been round this course already. I recommend the hon. Lady goes back to Lord Krebs report of 1997. The executive summary, written by Lord Krebs, is a brilliant synopsis of the problem. He said that the evidence of a link between badgers and the
	disease was “compelling”. He is absolutely clear that there is a link. The debate is on how the cull should take place, which is what he has criticised. What we are proposing is pilots, and we believe we have come up with a more efficient and effective method. In case the hon. Lady missed the statement, I repeat that we are going for a much larger area with hard boundaries, such as major roads, motorways and rivers, and a more effective system of culling. That is entirely consistent with the scientific advice from Krebs and the RBCT.

Mark Spencer: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for assisting me in trying to lose weight.
	Farmers in Nottinghamshire find themselves in a fortunate position. The county is TB-free, so badgers are TB-free, but the disease is spreading towards us from Derbyshire. My farmers will be glad that the Secretary of State will use the whole toolbox to prevent their cattle becoming infected, but farmers in two-year and four-year testing parishes will want to know whether the testing intervals will be reduced in clean areas?

Owen Paterson: I do apologise, Mr Speaker. I was speaking to the Minister of State and missed my hon. Friend’s question at the end. Could he possibly pose it again?

Mark Spencer: There is a conspiracy to make me bob up and down.
	Farmers in Nottinghamshire find themselves in a TB-free zone and currently undergo testing on a four-year or two-year cycle. They will be concerned that there will be an attempt to reduce the interval between tests in clean areas. Does the Secretary of State have any plans to do so?

Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point. The annual testing that we glibly talk about poses an enormous burden on farmers and is a fraught event. Virtually the whole of the west of England is on annual testing, and he is absolutely right to fear for his farmers in Nottingham that the interval might be reduced, because putting a herd through the skin test is an horrendous experience. That is another good reason to get on top of the disease quickly, before it spreads into his area.

Stephen McCabe: Given the figures we have heard from the Secretary of State, why did his Department’s impact assessment say that the cost of the cull outweighs the benefit to both farmers and taxpayers?

Owen Paterson: We should be concerned about the cost of not doing the cull. The sums involved in our proposals are very modest compared with the cost of carting off 26,000 healthy cattle, and the number will grow every year. We would be heading to a bill of £1 billion—how many times have I said that, Mr Speaker? The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the problem is the result of the passive attitude of the Labour Government since 1997.

Andy Slaughter: The Secretary of State says he intends to press on with the cull regardless of strong scientific evidence and overwhelming
	public opinion against. Instead, will he take the advantage of the delay to meet the groups and scientists who are opposed? Without doing so, he looks arrogant as well as incompetent.

Owen Paterson: That was not a terribly accurate summary of what I have said. I have said that we will respect the science. Despite huge pressure from the NFU grass roots, which has been reflected by knowledgeable Government Members, the NFU has reluctantly written to me to say that it wants a postponement, because it cannot deliver 70%—I am respecting the science. I am more than happy to talk to anyone about the policy, including the hon. Gentleman and the shadow Secretary of State. If he knows scientists who want to talk to me, I will talk to them, but we are absolutely clear that we are following the scientific logic of the preceding trials in a methodical manner. We are respecting the science, which is why, with a heavy heart, we are accepting the NFU proposal and its request to delay.

Kevin Brennan: The Secretary of State likes to use figurative language, but he should be careful about buying a round of drinks on the taxpayer. The Department has had months. It knew months ago that the cull could not start until after the Olympics, as he said in his statement. He also said that a cull should have started in the summer to be effective, so why has the policy dragged on for month after month when there was never any realistic possibility of an effective cull this year?

Owen Paterson: No, that is not an accurate statement. There was a sensible delay at the request of the police because of the huge pressures they were under to deliver the Olympics and Paralympics. There were also various judicial processes, which I have outlined. It is worth taking time to think about the impact of the weather, which has made it difficult to organise things on the ground. What really tipped the balance was the accurate and scientifically based verification of the badger numbers, which convinced the NFU. The NFU has reluctantly requested that we postpone at this late stage—with the nights drawing on and as we get into the winter with cold weather predicted, when badgers stay underground—and that is exactly what has happened.

William Bain: The Secretary of State has attempted to base his argument on science, but what does he say to Sir Patrick Bateson
	of the university of Cambridge and 30 other leading animal health scientists, who say his policy is a
	“costly distraction from nationwide TB control”?
	Was not his predecessor guilty of an appalling error when she decided to cut the budget for research into vaccination against bovine TB as a result of the comprehensive spending review?

Owen Paterson: That is wrong. We are spending £15.5 million over the next four years on vaccines. The debate in which the scientists have got themselves involved is not on whether removing diseased wildlife works. Going back to Lord Krebs’s report in 1997, everyone accepts that there are links from badgers to cattle, cattle to badgers, badgers to badgers and cattle to cattle. We know that that is how this horrible disease transmits itself. The debate is on how best to remove the wildlife. One of my most telling parliamentary questions showed that 57% of the traps were tampered with and 12% were stolen. That and the RBCT showed that that was not the most efficient system for removing the wildlife. We are taking on the logic in the full glare of scientific scrutiny, and seeing whether shooting is a more efficient method, and—I am saying this for about the sixth time—whether going for a larger 150 km area bounded by rivers and motorways is more effective.

Jonathan Ashworth: Many of my constituents have been in touch with me in recent days. I am sure they will have followed the Secretary of State’s albeit temporary U-turn with great interest, but there is also interest in how much money has been spent on preparations. The Secretary of State referred to the amount as a round of drinks within the wider context—I am not sure what clubs he drinks in. I know he is unable to give hon. Members the run of figures now, but could he commit to putting them in the House of Commons Library this afternoon?

Owen Paterson: Rather than give just a few numbers now, I am happy to put a comprehensive and clear statement in the Library outlining all the different costs—some costs will be on policing, some will be to do with DEFRA and some will be in compensation. However, I must pick on the hon. Gentleman’s use of the word “U-turn”. The statement is not a U-turn. The Government are absolutely determined, unlike the previous one, to bear down on TB, and we will bear down on TB in cattle and in wildlife. We will end up with a prosperous, successful cattle industry because of decisive, robust action by Conservative and Liberal Democrat Ministers in DEFRA.

Points of Order

David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Government Chief Whip came to the House to move the writ for the Corby by-election, with Louise Mensch applying to become the steward of the Manor of Northstead in Yorkshire. The Opposition Chief Whip then came to the House to apply for the writs for Cardiff South and Penarth, and for Manchester Central, with Tony Lloyd also applying to become the steward of the Manor of Northstead in Yorkshire. I put it to you, Mr Speaker, that it is not possible, and I do not think that Her Majesty has necessarily agreed, to have two stewards of her Manor of Northstead. The Opposition Chief Whip has therefore not moved the writ for Manchester Central properly, in that there can be only one steward—the steward, not a steward.

Mr Speaker: I am immensely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He clearly takes a very keen interest in this matter, either on his own behalf, that of his Bosworth constituents or conceivably even Her Majesty. I may tell him that it is possible for there to be serial appointments to the office in question. I do not say that the hon. Gentleman’s interest in this matter is in any way anorakish, but it is certainly intense, and I hope that he will be satisfied when I tell him that the second appointment to the said office has the effect of causing the lapse of the first appointment. I hope that that has brought a little joy into his life.

Helen Jones: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. During Health questions, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), gave me an answer in which he confused two trusts and created another, which he called the Halton trust, that does not actually exist. I realise that he may never have been north of Watford, but is there any way in which you can get him to come to the House and correct the record? My constituents cannot rely on assurances given by a Minister who does not even know which trust he is dealing with.

Mr Speaker: The hon. Lady implies that she is seeking a correction of the record. The Minister, like all Ministers and Members, is responsible for the veracity of his own observations in this House. He will shortly hear—not least through the Deputy Leader of the House—about the point of order that she has raised. Meanwhile I hope she will be satisfied with the knowledge that she has made her point in her own way on the record. We will leave it there for today.

Careers Advice in Schools for 12-16 Year Olds

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Gordon Birtwistle: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools, together with local businesses and other sectors, to provide a comprehensive careers advice service to 12 to 16 year olds; and for connected purposes.
	Over the past few years, I have discussed with businesses in Burnley future career paths for young people starting work with them. We have a serious skills gap in this country. I have looked at four major industries—the aerospace industry, the automotive industry, the green industries and the oil and gas industry, along with the chemical industry—which have advised me that they and their supply chains face a serious skills gap, not only now, but in the future. I have looked into this issue with regard to the careers advice given in schools.
	There is a serious lack of careers advice given to 12 to 16-year-olds in most secondary schools. Up to now, there has been no comprehensive package to ensure every student is taught about the local employment and training opportunities from an early age so that they can see how their school studies directly correspond to the needs of local employers. Most careers advice is delivered by teachers with little or no experience outside teaching. They do it voluntarily and with some vigour, but they do not really understand the businesses in their local areas.
	Careers advice is not given enough importance in schools, and there are few if any links with local employers. Local professionals do not visit schools, and time is limited for visits by students to local businesses. Careers advice is given too late to students, when they are about to leave school, but it should be given to young people from the age of 12 onwards. They do not need to make a decision then, but they need to know what careers will be available when they leave school. I am presently doing an Industry and Parliament Trust course with Total Oil, which has told me that it has more than 1,000 vacancies in the UK. I have been round lots of schools in Burnley and mentioned this to the young people, and not one has ever been advised about careers in the oil industry and, in particular, with Total.
	Employers are also unsure what skills the future work force will have. They receive applications from students who clearly do not understand the industry in which they are applying to work. Students are unaware of the skills that they will need to carry out jobs in specific industries. They do not know what careers are available in other areas and have information given to them by teachers who have only the skills of the teaching profession. This has led to high youth unemployment, when there are many vacancies in industry.
	I accept that the Government are doing a vast amount of work on encouraging young people to go into apprenticeships, and I support that wholeheartedly. In time, that will probably help to resolve some of these problems. But at the moment the careers advice being given in schools is not pointing young people to the careers available when they leave school.
	I have a local company in my constituency called Aircelle. It is the biggest local employer, with more than 1,000 employees and a turnover of £100 million. It makes high-tech thrust reversers for the Rolls-Royce jet engines. Over the next two years, it has to increase its turnover to £250 million, but it is being held back by a lack of skilled people. It is suffering from a skills shortage, as is its supply chain. The company held an Aircelle inspiration day and invited 600 young people from various schools in Burnley to go and see how a jet engine thrust reverser is manufactured. Before they went, not one child understood where they were going, but when they left every one of them was amazed by what an engineering career involved. I hope that a lot of those young people will be inspired by that.
	I would like each school to have a dedicated member of staff who is qualified and experienced in providing careers advice. I accept that not every school could fund a full-time careers post, but there is no reason why four or five schools could not get together and employ a qualified careers adviser. I do not doubt that budgets are tight, but schools now have extra budgets and the pupil premium, which they can invest in this advice. That is extremely important for young people leaving school and starting a career.
	Vocational courses and apprenticeships should be pushed more. Careers advisers should be able to explain what apprenticeships are available. As I have said, there is the oil industry, the chemical industry, the aerospace industry, the automotive industry and so on. These are the businesses of the future and the businesses that this country does well in, but they are also the businesses that are being held back in this country by a lack of skills, not only in the capital companies, such as Rolls-Royce and Total, but in the supply chains that work for these companies and deliver the product. At the moment, we import more products in order to keep these businesses going than those businesses export in finished products.
	So we need to cut those imports, and we can do that if we have the people to do the jobs.
	I would like Ofsted reports to take into account the work that schools are doing on careers advice. A lady in Burnley, Lesley Burrows, has started a company called Positive Footprints and set up a virtual and a visual jobcentre in a secondary school. The young people, when entering the school, have to go through this jobcentre. All over the walls of the entrance, she shows what jobs and careers are available. On the walls are shown actual jobs, and she stands there at her own expense, because the local county council will not fund her, which is absolutely ridiculous given what it would cost. She stands there, and if a particular student, whether 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16, wishes to find out more about careers, they can go to her and say, “I’ve seen a job on that wall. What is this industry? Please tell me, because I might like to do it. I might want to take GCSEs that make that possible.” I recommend that the Minister look into what this lady is doing.
	I am delighted to put the Bill before the House. I hope it has the House’s full support and that we can create a school curriculum that includes a careers advice service—perhaps linking schools together and delivering it in partnership—that delivers the young people we need into the industries that we need. I do not want young people leaving school thinking, “Goodness me. I wish I’d done that, but I never knew about it.” That is the most important thing. Young people need to know what is available, rather than being told what might be available the day they walk out the school gates to find a job.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That Gordon Birtwistle, John Man, Jake Berry, Jason McCartney, Ian Swales, Stephen Lloyd and Ms Gisela Stuart present the Bill
	Gordon Birtwistle accordingly presented the Bill.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 30 November 2012, and to be printed (Bill 79).

HGV Road User Levy Bill (Ways and Means)

Norman Baker: I beg to move,
	That provision may be made for charging a duty of excise, to be known as HGV road user levy, in respect of heavy goods vehicles used or kept on public roads in the United Kingdom.
	With permission, I would like to move that the House supports the introduction of legislation concerning a new levy for all heavy goods vehicles weighing 12 tonnes and over using the UK road network. We intend that the new levy will apply to all categories of public road in the UK and to both UK and foreign-registered HGVs. The introduction of the charge forms the commitment in the coalition agreement stating:
	“We will work towards the introduction of a new system of HGV road user charging to ensure a fairer arrangement for UK hauliers.”
	HGVs play a crucial role in our economy by supplying businesses and servicing customers. There are approximately 1.5 million trips by foreign-registered HGVs into the UK each year. Of course, that contributes to the well-being of our economy, but there has been an inequality for some time, in that UK hauliers are often charged when they travel abroad, through tolls and other charging schemes, whereas foreign hauliers can use the UK road network for no charge. This is an inequality that the coalition Government wishes to address through this legislation.
	I believe that this levy, introduced alongside other measures, such as reductions in the HGV vehicle excise duty, which means that more than nine out of 10 vehicles will pay no more than now, will help the competitiveness of UK business, while ensuring that we continue to enjoy the benefits of free trade with Europe. My Department undertook consultation on this subject earlier this year that indicated that stakeholders, especially those in the logistics sector, support the planned changes. Subject to the legislation being passed, we plan to introduce the levy from April 2014.
	I now wish to open the motion to the Floor, and at the end of the debate the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), will respond to the points made.

Jim Fitzpatrick: It is good to see a number of Members in the Chamber for this debate, especially the distinguished Chair of the Transport Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who is in her place, as ever. I am grateful for the Minister’s brief introductory remarks.
	We support the motion in principle. Given that it is relatively unusual to debate the Ways and Means motion, which paves the way for the Second Reading debate, I hope that my comments will be in order. I will make some brief introductory comments and then look at the measures in the draft Bill—I would be surprised if the Bill did not closely follow the draft Bill, but judging from the written ministerial statement, that will become clear later today.
	The Eurovignette directive covers this legislation. I must confess that I was tempted to look up the dictionary definition of “vignette”. I was pleased to see that it was
	“a small illustration…which fades into its background without a definite border”.
	That is clearly not a definition of the United Kingdom and does not take us any further forward.
	Both main parties have promised these measures for more than 20 years, however, so I commend the coalition for bringing this one forward. We will be dealing with it over the next few months. I read recently, on the subject of the coalition, that the Lib Dems introduce the nice legislation and the Conservatives introduce the nasty legislation. I am not sure whether that is reflected in the surviving Lib Dem Transport Minister opening the debate and his Conservative colleague concluding it. The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), might have something to say about who has been pushing this measure within the Department. None the less, it is good that it is here.
	The unfairness felt by the UK road haulage industry is well documented, and it has long pressed for this measure in order to defend British industry, protect UK roads and create a level playing field with European competitors. As colleagues will know, road haulage covers 68% of all goods moved within the UK, is represented by 34,000 workplaces and employs more than 220,000 people. The Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association both support the measures—the RHA strongly and the FTA broadly, as its support is a little more qualified.
	I shall come shortly to the questions of hypothecation and whether the money raised will be used for transport spending, which I understood was the original intention of the directive; of the impact on the Government’s policy of moving freight from road to rail; and of the implication for short sea shipping and using that to move freight around the country. I will want to make reference to the Road Safety Foundation reports, including the annual report launched in the other place last week by the noble Lord Dubs, the organisation’s chairman. I will also want to raise questions about how this role will impact on The Times cycling safety campaign, of which I know the Government are very supportive, as well as about the Government’s policy for the introduction of longer and heavier lorries, and how that fits in with the plan. I shall also deal with whether or not this measure might act as a disincentive for road haulage firms to employ green measures or procure green or greener vehicles. I shall come back to these issues later. Even in the proposed measures facilitated by this Ways and Means motion and the Bill to follow, as read in the draft Bill, there are some anomalies, which I shall come to in due course.
	Will the Minister clarify, if he can, some of the proposals in the draft Bill and in the written ministerial statement? For example, clause 3(2) of the draft Bill says that the Secretary of State can delegate exemptions for “specified roads”, but there is not much information without the actual Bill before us or in the Library. The Minister might wish to explain which exemptions the Secretary of State will make for which specific roads; if not, we will certainly raise the issue in Committee.
	Clause 4 of the draft Bill says that the levy is suspended
	“if a vehicle is stolen”
	until such time as it is recovered. It is not quite clear whether the recovery is by the police or the owner, or whether, if a vehicle is damaged or unable to be used, it means that the levy will be suspended or re-instigated when the vehicle is recovered—or whether that is entirely fair. These are points of detail.
	In respect of the rebates that are covered in clause 7, three matters are worth mentioning. Subsection (5) states:
	“The Secretary of State may specify conditions with which a person must comply before making an application for a rebate.”
	The implication is that the Secretary of State is going to preview all applications, which is obviously never going to be the case, as it would not be possible for the Secretary of State to do that. The clause mentions that an administrative fee will be levied, again saying that the Secretary of State will determine each case—and happily that is going to be the case—so will the Minister outline the thinking behind the administrative fee and how much it would be? Finally on clause 7, subsection (9) states:
	“Matters specified under this section must be published in whatever way the Secretary of State thinks appropriate.”
	That is very wide, so I am sure the Minister will have some information about what that means.
	Clause 9 provides that money
	“is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”
	Originally, there was an expectation in the European directive that the money raised would be hypothecated, at least in some way, for transport purposes. The Minister will know that the Road Safety Foundation published its annual report last week. It clearly indicates that road engineering can have “an extraordinary effect”—those are the words it uses, which I cited to the Secretary of State at Transport questions last Thursday morning—in reducing deaths and serious injuries. Simple measures such as road markings, traffic lights and barriers to prevent vehicles from careering down off different roads are ways of saving lives. The hypothecation of the levy into road safety measures was very much anticipated, but it is not quite clear whether that is going to be the case under the Bill or whether the provisions saying that the money will go into the Consolidated Fund mean that it will go into the Treasury, so that the Department for Transport will have to bid for its share in due course.
	On other safety issues, the Government have clearly indicated that they want to introduce longer and heavier lorries on Britain’s roads. There is a system through which longer and heavier vehicles will pay a greater levy, so that poses the questions of whether some of this money will go to pay for the upkeep of Britain’s roads and how this will impact on the safety campaign that the Government strongly support. I know that the Under-Secretary made a strong speech in support of road safety last week, and particularly cycle safety. His hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who is no longer in his place, spoke at the “Love London, Go Dutch” cycling safety conference in Church House immediately after Transport questions last week. The Times campaign to which all parties have signed up says that we should spend more money on cycling safety.
	The question arises whether some of the money raised through this levy will go towards making cycling safer, particularly given that many more people are cycling today.
	I would like to raise a question of principle about rail freight and short sea shipping. What are the Government’s policies on promoting rail freight and taking lorries off our roads whenever possible? What are the Government going to do to promote short sea shipping as an alternative to HGVs on our roads moving freight across the country as happens at the moment?
	Clause 10 provides a power to stop by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. I went out with VOSA when I was the Minister with responsibility for road safety, so I know that it uses that power efficiently, effectively and diligently. I particularly remember being on the A13 when the inspector I was travelling with in his VOSA vehicle indicated that he was going to stop a particular vehicle and asked me whether I knew why he intended to stop it and take it into the inspection centre. As a good West Ham United supporter with one of my West Ham ties on, I said, “I think I know the reason. He’s got an Arsenal flag in the back of his cab.” The inspector looked at me and said, “No, Jim, that is not why we are stopping him.” I thought that was a fairly reasonable assumption; it certainly worked for me. VOSA is very effective at keeping our roads as safe as they are; the power to stop is a very important one. It is good to see it included in the draft Bill so that the levy that the Government intend to introduce can be enforced.
	Clause 11 deals with the offence of
	“using or keeping heavy goods vehicle if levy not paid”.
	Subsection (3) states:
	“A fine imposed under this section that would not otherwise be paid into the Consolidated Fund is to be paid into the Consolidated Fund.”
	That reinforces my point about how the money raised is likely to be spent.
	A written ministerial statement was published this morning by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, which says:
	“A private company will be contracted by the Department for Transport to administer the payment scheme for foreign-registered HGVs. The contractor will be required to maintain an electronic database of foreign-registered HGVs for which a levy has been paid.”
	I wonder whether the Minister is in a position to clarify some of the details of the expected size of the organisation that he anticipates will be needed to do this task. How will the costs be calculated? Does he view the tendering arrangements as a bonus to the Treasury, or will it be cost-neutral? Have companies already indicated interest such a contract or do they already exist? Importantly, what technology might it be anticipated will be used for identifying foreign HGVs when they come into this country?
	Let me conclude with six key questions. The background papers indicate that 98% of UK hauliers will see no more extra costs than around £50 a year, and that 94% will see a zero increase in their costs. Does the Minister have any information on the likely cost for the 2% for whom there is no information? At £1,000 per vehicle per annum, some haulage firms might be expected to pay a considerable amount of money. I hope the Minister can tell us whether any assessment has been carried out of the impact on the UK’s road haulage industry.
	Secondly, the introduction is being phased between UK and non-UK vehicles. Is any loss of revenue to the Treasury expected as a result of the staging of the introduction of the levy, as and when it happens?
	Thirdly, will the lower VED for UK vehicles act as a disincentive for haulage companies to procure greener or green vehicles, or it is anticipated that the size of such vehicles will mean that they would not be covered by the reduced VED? Has the Minister conducted an assessment for the industry in that regard?
	Fourthly, will the Government’s decision last year to opt out of the European directive on cross-border enforcement of traffic offences impact on these new measures? I do not think we opposed that, but we were certainly worried about it at the time. Will not sharing that cross-border enforcement data make implementing, monitoring and enforcing the levy easier, harder or neither?
	My fifth question is more general. Is the introduction of the HGV levy charging scheme likely to lead to the wider use of road charging schemes? Is this just a taster of Government policy for the future?
	Finally, UK companies involved in haulage on European routes will be charged for a six-month or annual purchase of VED, which will incorporate the levy. European hauliers coming into the UK will be charged by the day, by the month or however else, so if UK companies have vehicles on the continent that are being charged to use European roads will they be able to apply for a rebate when those vehicles are not using UK roads? If the principle that one should be charged for using the roads is adopted, which I am sure it will be, it seems unfair that UK hauliers should be charged for using UK roads when they are using European roads and being charged over there.
	In conclusion, we intend to support the motion and certainly hope to be able to support the Bill on Second Reading. We will want to examine some of the issues I have raised today in Committee. I do not expect the Minister to be able to respond to every point I have raised today, as this is obviously an unusual way of doing business. I was advised by the appropriate authorities, however, that I could raise issues that I would be likely to raise on Second Reading. Having done so, I do not anticipate raising them again on Second Reading and, given that you have not stopped me making any of my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, I must assume that I have been totally in order. I look forward to the Minister’s response in due course.

Andrew Percy: I am delighted to support this excellent initiative. Of course, the policy was a commitment of ours at the last election and it is always a joy to stand in the Chamber and deliver on a manifesto promise. I know that it is supported on both sides of the House and was in other parties’ manifestos, too.
	We must do more to support the sector across the UK. In the area I represent, logistics and transport are important and employ many people. We have many hauliers locally and I know that they will welcome the Bill. The initiative is good news not only for hauliers and people who work in the industry, but, I hope, for residents in my area. I hope that the Minister will
	announce how the money will be spent. I represent the port of Goole and most of the arterial routes into the ports of Hull, Immingham and Grimsby and our roads are often well-used by HGVs, which cause considerable damage. We get a lot of complaints from residents about HGVs, so let us hope that once the money has been raised it will be invested back into our road networks, particularly in Brigg and Goole. I do not yet see the Minister nodding but I am sure he will confirm that later.
	There is a question of fairness as British hauliers who go to Europe have to pay tolls, which are not levied on any great scale in this country. It is only right that foreign vehicles operating here should pay to use our roads.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way so soon. He is making a very good speech and he is right to say that the initiative has broad support on both sides of the House, including in my constituency, where hauliers serve Tata Steel, Rockwool Ltd and others. The Minister is introducing a complex little device, so will the hon. Gentleman urge him to think again? Some UK hauliers of certain types and sizes might lose out, or might at least not gain all the benefits that the Minister has intended, so he might want to take some time to reconsider and tie up all the little loopholes.

Andrew Percy: I feel that I have been a conduit for the hon. Gentleman’s contribution to the debate, which is, I think, addressed specifically to the Minister. It is a joy to have been that conduit. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point and I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to it.
	I was talking about the importance of the sector to the Humber, and it is good to see my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), in his place. As we jointly represent the steel works, he will be able to confirm the importance of the sector to our area and the fact that it will see a great deal of growth over the next few months. I am never one to miss an opportunity to promote a good local news story, and in my constituency a studio school is about to be established with a specific focus on the logistics sector. Those involved will be delighted to know that our UK haulage industry will receive a shot in the arm from the proposal.
	Of course, we had other good news locally on the Humber bridge tolls not so long ago. I will not miss the opportunity to promote another good news story, and I am sure that the Minister, whose Department was so involved in that decision, will be delighted to know that since the Government provided £150 million to halve those tolls, the most recent figures on road use across the Humber bridge have shown an 8% increase. That greatly exceeds expectations. Hauliers report that they can now use that bridge to get their goods to the other side of the Humber divide.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Andrew Percy: I will, and I look forward to being a conduit for the hon. Gentleman yet again.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be not only a joyful conduit but a joyful supporter of my argument. He makes a valid point about tolls and I welcome his comments about the absence of tolls in his area. The Severn bridge toll, which is paid on the way into Wales but not on the way out, is a significant drain on the south Wales economy. Does he support those of us who have been campaigning for years to get rid of it?

Andrew Percy: I am afraid I am not an expert on south Wales, having only visited once, but the hon. Gentleman has made his point. In the Humber region, people pay to travel in both directions, so we do not have any argument about whether people pay to get in and out of Yorkshire, whereas a debate does take place between Wales and England. I shall avoid stepping into any debate about local issues in south Wales. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand.
	The Minister will know that although this provision is welcome, the sector faces considerable challenges. I meet representatives of the sector regularly, and only this summer I was chatting to a local haulage firm at the Ousefleet show. The continuing challenges faced by the sector, particularly in the light of rising fuel costs, were explained to me. I know that the sector will support this measure, however.
	It is something of a sadness that we must take this approach, however, and it demonstrates the all-encompassing grasp of the European Union—I cannot miss the opportunity to have a bit of a bash at the EU—that we must follow such a convoluted route, creating a scheme that applies to our hauliers and then providing them with a rebate through VED. That shows how we have lost control of our destiny in this country. We should be able to support our hauliers directly if we want to, and we should be proud to say that.
	I do not want to say a great deal more on this, although I think that I have spoken longer than the Minister did—not longer than the shadow Minister, I have to say—but I look forward to contributing again on this subject in the future. I have just two questions for the Minister, one of which I have already asked, but I will pose it again. What will happen to the money that is raised from this? Where will it be spent? Both geographically and within Government Departments, where can we expect that funding to be spent? Will the Minister also confirm that we seem to have an increasing number of vehicles that are dual-registered. Has any assessment been made of whether the measure will result in more or less dual registration? With those few comments, I will end by saying that I welcome this decision and look forward to the Government’s making progress with the matter.

Louise Ellman: I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue. It is one that the Transport Committee has considered over a long period. We are nothing if not persistent, so I am glad that we are now not just discussing it but talking about implementing something to change the situation.
	The proposal does two things. It recognises the importance of road haulage as an industry in its own right and its significance to our economy, and it seeks a
	fairer deal for British hauliers. Both objectives are extremely important. The Transport Committee has considered the issue in a major way on several occasions. We conducted a study of freight transport in the last Parliament. We produced a report on road taxes, fees and charges in July 2009, and the levy featured prominently in that. The Committee returned to the issue in July this year, when we again considered freight, charges on freight and foreign hauliers.
	The proposal deals with three inter-related issues: one of them is made explicit, but the other two are important and need to be considered in relation to the provisions of the Bill when it is published. Essentially the proposal is about road taxation and the problem of differential tax regimes which put foreign-registered vehicles at an advantage against British registered ones, which has long been a concern and needs to be addressed. Indeed, we have been too long in addressing it; it adds an additional cost to British hauliers.
	When the Committee looked at this issue in 2009, we were told that foreign-registered hauliers should have paid £300 million in taxes to cover the costs that they created in the impact on roads, pollution and congestion and in environmental damage. I suspect that that figure has not changed in any significant way since that time. Another background issue does not appear to be mentioned in the proposal, but I am sure that the Minister will wish to comment on it. It goes back to the broader issue of unfairness in the regimes that deal with British-registered and European-registered hauliers. It is the issue of cabotage and the ability of foreign-registered hauliers to conduct domestic haulage in this country when British-registered hauliers have difficulty doing this in other countries.
	In July this year we heard once again from the Road Haulage Association and other organisations about the extension of cabotage and the destabilising impact of foreign-registered hauliers becoming involved in our domestic haulage market, not necessarily in the long term but perhaps for a relatively short term. I understand that discussions about cabotage are taking place in Europe and they will have an impact on the haulage industry in respect of the issue that is at the heart of the Bill that is to be published. I ask the Minister to comment on that, if not today then at a later stage. It is part of the general picture.
	Safety is another of the background issues. My right hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) mentioned it, but I want to refer to it in a slightly different way. One of the concerns that the Select Committee heard was that foreign-registered hauliers might have lower costs because they had lower safety standards, putting British hauliers at a competitive disadvantage. I and, I am sure, other hon. Members want to raise safety standards, not go to a lowest common denominator, but safety is an issue. There is another question about increasing safety standards for European hauliers.
	There is also the question of enforcement of debts that arise in one country but perhaps need to be collected in another. The cross-border directive has not been signed by the Government and again there is a question about how that is going to be realised. Then there is the implementation of the proposed measures. The Vehicle and Operator Services Agency is to be responsible for implementation. Will it have the resources to do it?
	The Committee will be looking at the broader issue of VOSA in the very near future, but that has to be one of the issues.
	In summary, I welcome the proposals. Some significant questions need to be asked once the Bill has been published in full and as it proceeds through the House. We must consider time-based charging and why it is thought the best way to address the issue. We should also look at whether the proposals are equitable in relation to UK hauliers. Will the means for collecting the fees be workable? We were told that one of the reasons why the previous Government did not proceed with legislation on this issue was that they felt the cost would be too high and it was not practical. Have those concerns been considered? Is there a way of dealing with them?
	So the questions are about resources, VOSA, cross-border issues, cabotage rules and how this relates to European legislation as a whole. I would like to have an assurance that in dealing with European legislation we do not speak as if we were passive recipients of what someone else does. We are part of the framing of that legislation and we should play an active part in pursuing our interests.
	I welcome the proposals. There are some significant issues that need to be considered in detail in Committee and elsewhere in the House. I hope that the Transport Committee will feel that we are getting more success in seeing some of our concerns not only listened to—they were listened to before—but acted on. I hope that it will happen in the near future.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am happy to make my contribution to this somewhat technical though important debate. It is gratifying when matters contained in the manifesto or the coalition agreement have been acted on and we, as the governing party as part of a coalition, have delivered on our commitments. This is an instance in which we can be proud of ourselves for having delivered. It is bizarre, as the shadow Minister said, that we have been talking about this for more than 20 years. It seems a rather long time to be discussing something as technical and clear cut as this.
	I fully support the levy. It will level the playing field. My constituency is dependent on good transport infrastructure. Spelthorne is very connected to Heathrow, but it also has links with the M3 and the M4 and it is within the M25. This legislation is exactly the kind of thing that haulage businesses in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies want to see. It sends a signal; they see a Government who are very keen on promoting business and enterprise and who are willing to defend the interests of British business against competition, which is laudable. For too long, British firms have been paying road tolls abroad while foreign operators were largely exempt from such taxation in the United Kingdom. It boils down to a simple proposition: is it right that foreign operators do not contribute to the maintenance of the roads they use? Contribution to the upkeep of the roads is not even a competition point; it is simply a matter of equity.
	With regard to hypothecation, I am keen that the money that goes into the capital fund stays within the Transport budget, particularly the roads budget. I was
	lucky enough to go on a Transport Committee trip to Switzerland, where we saw the rail infrastructure and how it was financed. Rail infrastructure in that country is determined by hypothecated funds raised from taxation. That seems a good principle for the funding of infrastructure, and gets rid of any need to borrow money. The Swiss have a balanced budget at every stage of their infrastructure development. I am not making a party political point, but given our recent experience we could learn considerably from that funding model, so I am pleased that we have set aside a fund. I urge the Minister to be scrupulous about using the money for roads.
	Everyone knows that haulage services are important to the smooth functioning of the economy. The transportation of goods is exactly what we as an advanced economy should be fostering. I am pleased that members of the Road Haulage Association are keen on the legislation and that we have managed to satisfy their concerns.
	Generally, the measure is a step in the right direction. I hope the Minister will clarify some of the points and queries raised by Members on both sides of the House; it is rare that we come together to agree on something that will be helpful and useful to all our constituents and to the wider interests of our country.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I am delighted to speak on behalf of hauliers not only from my constituency and nearby Bridgend, but throughout south Wales. People often forget that the M4 corridor in south Wales is still one of the greatest manufacturing hubs in the nation of Wales, and probably the United Kingdom. There is a wide variety, ranging from the very modern heavy manufacturing—I was tempted to say the very old—of Tata Steel, whose investment sustains many jobs for local hauliers, to Rockwool, the green insulation company in Heol-y-Cyw in my constituency. There are many other manufacturers—for example, in life sciences—and they all use various types of road haulage, sustaining jobs in the south Wales economy.
	I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng). The measure is broadly welcomed by all on the green Benches. Resolving the matter has not been unduly complex, given that we are dealing with the interpretation of European legislation in the UK, and the Minister is to be commended for bringing forward proposals. I hope to ask a number of constructive questions, both as someone speaking up for hauliers in my area and as a keen cyclist on the roads of London and in south Wales—the Minister will know where I am heading when I say that.
	I commend the work of members of the Transport Committee, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). She mentioned the number of reports that the Committee has turned out on issues pertinent to the measure, including most recently a report on foreign hauliers in the UK and how we get the level playing field that everyone wants. The Committee has also examined road charging and freight transport.
	In a genuinely constructive way, may I ask the Minister to turn in his response to those who may fall outside the mechanism? I appreciate the complexity and difficulty
	of trying to devise the right mechanism, but my understanding—the Minister can correct me if I am wrong—is that as many as 15,000 smaller, greener, lighter haulage vehicles may not benefit from the provisions; for example, in Pencoed in my patch, there is a light haulier who may fall entirely outside the measure. If those 15,000 represent 5% or 6% of the whole UK fleet, they are a significant minority, and I suspect they may look with envy at the large hauliers who deal with Tata Steel in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr Francis) or with Rockwool in Heol-y-Cyw in my patch. Is there something more the Minister can do to help the small hauliers? They face the same problems and challenges. He may reply that the Government have looked at every possible avenue and it cannot be done, in which case perhaps he could explain why.
	Hauliers in my area are specifically asking for clarity about the new levels of vehicle excise duty. I think the Minister is likely to respond by saying, “That’s beyond my payroll. You’re going to have to wait for the Budget.”

Stephen Hammond: indicated  assent .

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister is already nodding. I am slightly disappointed, because hauliers want an assurance that under the provisions VED will be cut proportionately to the levy and that they will actually benefit. I have been in the same situation as the Minister, and it would be great if he could assure them that come what may, there will be proportionality and that people will gain, or at least not lose out.
	The measure is all about creating a level playing field with our European counterparts, because we have been disadvantaged. Can the Minister give us an assurance that UK hauliers will not lose out? If many will gain, but some will unfortunately lose out compared with others, can he tell us why that is and who they may be? I suspect I may have difficult messages for some of the hauliers in my patch who assume they will all be winners under the mechanism.

Therese Coffey: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the message we need to deliver to our constituents. Does he recognise though that it should not be about the UK being a winner, but making sure that we get money from foreign users? That is the key point.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Lady makes a good point. It is not a case of us being winners. I think the hon. Member for Spelthorne slightly misspoke earlier when he talked about putting protection in place. As the hon. Lady says, it is not to do with protection for us, but with creating a level playing field. I am sure the hon. Gentleman did not intend to suggest that we want fortress mechanisms; it is about getting a level playing field.

Kwasi Kwarteng: As an attentive observer of and participant in our debates, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that in my speech I suggested that foreign operators should contribute to their use of the roads. That is the best argument in favour of the legislation.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I could not agree more; the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) make very good points.
	On the issue of a level playing field, can the Minister give us clarity on when the start date will be? What is his best guess at the moment as to when the scheme will be introduced for hauliers not based in the UK? I suspect that this is a complex issue, but while I welcome the provision, it would be great if we could have the same date right across the board. If we cannot, why not, and can he give clarity on why not? There are worries that the date may be six months or a year afterwards, or—heaven help us—after the end of this Parliament; at least in this Parliament we know when that will be. Can the Minister give us an assurance that the measure will at least be in place before then? In fact, more accurately, could he tell us when it will be in place? All of us speak to haulage associations in our area; it would be great to get that accuracy for them.
	I have a question for the Minister, for whom I am fearful. When I was a Minister, I was frequently told by officials, “Don’t do that, Minister; you could well be open to European challenge.” Sometimes, I would get a risk assessment put in front of me saying, “Actually, it is worth the risk—go ahead.” Has the Minister had those discussions with the Commission, and even if his officials are not happy, is he confident that the decision to have different charging levels for UK and non-UK-based heavy goods vehicles, because of the issues to do with daily, weekly and monthly rates being applied differently and being available differently, will not in any way be challenged on the grounds that it is discriminatory? I hope it will not, but I seek clarity and confidence from him on that point.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), in his splendid opening speech, touched on issues relating to how the measure will be enforced. If I may drive home that point, there are some concerns from hauliers in my area that it may be more difficult to enforce the mechanism that the Minister is bringing forward now that his Government have opted out of the EU directive on cross-border enforcement. I would have thought that that would have been a highly useful mechanism through which to ensure that the measure is in place across the UK and elsewhere. In bringing forward this mechanism, has he had a risk assessment done that says that that does not increase the risk of non-enforcement?
	I am genuinely not making a political point, but we know that some of the enforcement will be done by our police. I know that the Minister will say that the issue is not police numbers, but how and where we deploy them, but we face a cut of thousands of officers—I think the current running total is a cut of about 15,000 police officers by 2015. Put that on top of the fact that we are opting out of the EU directive on cross-border agreement and I worry a little, even if the Minister does not, about how we will enforce the measure properly, so that we see a level playing field in practice, as well as on parliamentary paper.
	Finally, I turn to an issue that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. I am a very keen cyclist, and a member of Sustrans—I do not know whether I have to declare that as an interest. My family and I cycle extensively, including in London, where hauliers hoot their horns and yell at me, “What the hell are you doing
	cycling on the roads in London?”. It amazes me; I have every bit as much of a right to use the roads as they do. There are extremely responsible hauliers and drivers out there, but we know how many injuries and fatalities there are. The Labour party has believed for some time that some of the benefit from the mechanism that the Minister is introducing—some of the levy—should be put towards working with the industry, rather than mandating them, to try to roll out technologically advanced measures that allow hauliers to see pedestrians and cyclists at the side of their vehicle. That would be a major step forward. Too often, around the streets of London and elsewhere, we see sites where there have been inadvertent collisions between soft cyclists and hard vehicles, marked by so-called ghost cycles—bicycles painted white and attached to railings in memory of someone who has lost their life. It would be very welcome if we looked at that.

Chi Onwurah: I want to support the very important points that my hon. Friend makes. I witnessed a cyclist being crushed by a lorry, and am sitting in on the coroner’s investigation; the sort of practical suggestions that he makes would be welcomed by cyclists and their families.

Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that I can understand the Government’s opposition; they do not want to put undue burdens on the haulage industry, which, now as always, is suffering stress. I suggest that the Government should not have a closed mind on the subject, but should be open to the idea that, working with the industry, we could roll the technology out over time—and not a long period of time, either. Hauliers frequently renew their fleets; as fleets are renewed, we can roll the technology out. What we are talking about is eliminating blind spots. In London, one sees cyclists in the established blue cycle lanes; someone driving a lorry cannot see the fact that as they turn left, they veer right across that blue lane. Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend says, occasionally they injure a cyclist badly, or even cause a fatality. The technology is there, and there are not massive costs. I think that we could roll it out as fleets renew.

Jim Fitzpatrick: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. To reinforce his point, some companies have done sterling work in advancing the technology that he mentions. I know that the Minister is familiar with Cemex; after one of its drivers was involved in a fatality, it pioneered technology that it uses in the warning and alarm systems in its cement vehicles. It is doing everything that it can to prevent a recurrence of such an incident. Some in the industry are working hard to achieve aims that the whole House would support.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend for that.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I should just correct my hon. Friend: I am not right hon. The Transport Committee Chair kindly promoted me. The Minister may want to put a word in for me, but I am not right hon.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As a full-time politician, I am more than happy to over-inflate anybody’s ego at any moment, but I will certainly put a word in for my hon. Friend, right as he was in his point. Rolling out
	improvements through fleet modernisation would create jobs in the UK relating to the manufacture and installation of those technologies. It is a win-win.
	That is not my main point. My main point is that I welcome the Bill, but the Minister could do more, by tweaking and refining it, to make sure that there are not people who lose out while others gain from a level playing field; in so doing, he could take the opportunity to think bike.

Andrew Bridgen: I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and point out that I have been a holder of a certificate of professional competence in road haulage operations for more than 20 years.
	I welcome this proposal, as other Members have done. My constituency of North West Leicestershire is in the middle of the country, and is home to East Midlands airport, the second busiest cargo airport in the country, handling some 310,000 tonnes of flown cargo every year. More than a third of the private sector jobs in my constituency are in distribution, or are distribution-related, and as we have no railway station, road haulage is an extremely significant part of our local economy.
	The UK road haulage industry is of huge importance to not just my constituency but the whole UK, with 2.6 million people employed in the logistics industry. As the shadow Minister mentioned, more than 65% of all freight is transported by road; last year, that amounted to some 1.5 billion tonnes. By comparison, just 11% is transported by rail. For those who are wondering where the other 24% went, that is transported by pipeline or coastal and inland waterway shipping. Almost all goods involve some element of road transport.
	I have spoken to road hauliers regularly, both in my previous business career and in my present role representing them in Westminster. As has been said, the consensus on the issue of foreign-registered heavy goods vehicles can be summed up very simply in one phrase: hauliers simply want a level playing field.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who is no longer in the Chamber, said, road hauliers in the UK are at a huge disadvantage compared with our European neighbours when it comes to diesel prices. It is estimated that on average road hauliers pay 25p more for a litre of road fuel. When UK lorries go abroad, there are literally dozens of toll roads in countries such as France, Italy and Spain, whereas in this country, apart from bridge crossings, which we have heard about, there is only the London congestion charge and the M6 toll, which can be avoided.
	Clearly, charging foreign-registered hauliers would be a step in the right direction if we are to close the gap and address the advantage that they enjoy over UK-based hauliers. Because EU law dictates that the charge has to be applied to UK hauliers too, I welcome the UK Government’s proposal to reduce domestic vehicle excise duty to ensure that this is not just a stealth tax on haulage companies.
	I welcome the proposal to make foreign-registered vehicles contribute to the upkeep of UK roads. I remind the House of the costs generated by foreign hauliers as
	a result of accidents, which have been mentioned. A report by the Accident Exchange estimates that accidents involving foreign lorries on UK motorways cost our economy approximately £57 million a year, which represents an increase of almost a third compared with the 2010 figures.
	Foreign lorries are responsible for just over 3% of motorway accidents, which means that one in 31 motorway accidents, according to the report, are the fault of a foreign lorry driver. As the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, side-swipe crashes are the most common accident: drivers disappear into a left-hand-drive lorry’s blind spot, and are hit when it changes lanes. According to estimates, costs were not recovered from the at-fault foreign party in 28% of accidents last year because of factors such as invalid insurance policies, untraceable owners, drivers leaving false details, or just failing to pull over at all. I hope that the Minister will help us to address this issue.
	There is no doubt that left-hand drive foreign-registered vehicles are far more likely to be involved in accidents on UK roads than their domestic competitors. The Vehicle and Operators Services Agency reports that foreign-registered vehicles are far more likely to be found on inspection to be in breach of rules on drivers’ hours and to have maintenance defects.
	As has been said, the Freight Transport Association supports these measures, and welcomes the publication today of a parliamentary Bill to introduce a charge for foreign-registered vehicles that use UK roads. It says:
	“Under the HGV Road User Levy Bill all heavy goods vehicles of 12 tonnes and over will be required to pay a levy before being able to travel on UK roads.”
	It also says:
	“FTA has supported the idea of a charge on foreign vehicles for many years as a way of addressing at least partly the competitive differences between British registered operators and foreign-registered vehicles.”
	However, it imposes three important conditions on its support and, if the House will indulge me, I should like to go through them. First, the cost of the levy must be fully recompensed for UK operators by an equivalent reduction in vehicle excise duty. The FTA says:
	“The Bill makes explicit that VED will be the means by which rebates will be made to make the overall scheme virtually cost-neutral for UK operators. The precise reductions in VED to bring this about will not be known until the Budget Statement in 2014 where they will be included as part of the Finance Bill.”
	I hope that the Minister will give us more details on that. The FTA goes on to say:
	“An analysis published by the Department in February of this year showed that about 6,500 vehicles fell into bands where VED rates were already too low to fully offset the cost of the levy before the applicable EU minimum rate was reached. Of these about half were 28 tonne 2+2 articulated vehicles.”
	May I point out to the Minister that in nearly all cases the additional cost could be reduced to less than £10 if vehicles are down-plated into the next VED rate band? I hope that he will bear that in mind and that we will have some answers on that issue.
	The FTA’s second condition is that the cost and administrative burden of paying the levy must be no greater than those involved in acquiring a normal VED licence. I am pleased that the levy will be administered
	for UK operators by the DVLA. The Bill makes it clear that the levy will be paid in a single transaction and for the same time period as VED, with levy rates being calculated automatically. The “single transaction” approach means that there will be virtually no additional costs for the domestic haulage industry.
	The FTA’s third condition is that there must be meaningful and financially significant penalties for operators who evade the charge. The Bill sets out a detailed enforcement strategy for non-payment of the levy and for mis-payment at the wrong rate. Because each payment will be vehicle-specific, the Bill commits the DVLA to using automatic number plate recognition technology to target vehicles present in the country for which no levy has been paid. There will be on-the-spot fines and a fine of up to £5,000 upon conviction in court. I should like to ask the Minister how non-UK-registered vehicles that have left the country and have not paid the levy will be pursued.
	A few issues need to be resolved, so I shall put some questions to the Minister. How will charging work in Northern Ireland across the land border with the Republic of Ireland? How will holders of reduced pollution certificates be compensated through replacement grants? Detailed arrangements have been announced for tow-bar combinations and their inclusion in the scheme. As I have said, we need to look at operators who are using the types of vehicle where there will be a higher net charge, particularly the operators of 28-tonne 2+2 artics. The FTA said:
	“Overall, we are pleased with the Government’s plans to address this long-standing disparity between UK and foreign vehicle costs. Our main concerns seem to have been met and we will investigate further outstanding issues with members”.
	In conclusion, the Bill is good for the road haulage industry, which is hugely important to my constituency and to the whole country. It is essential that we have a profitable, vibrant and safe road haulage industry for the country now and for our long-term economy.

Stewart Hosie: I did not plan to make a speech, but I have a question for the Minister. Because the introductory remarks by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) were so extraordinarily short—less than a minute, I believe—I did not have an opportunity to ask it earlier.
	I welcome the Bill. Anything that provides a level playing field that offers certainty is good not just for the haulage sector—it will be welcomed by the many professional haulage companies in my constituency—but for manufacturing, which relies on those hauliers, and, I do not doubt, for goods coming in and out of port. It will be really important when boxed stuff is being moved. I wonder, however, whether the measure contains an inadvertent loophole. The provision dealing with the time limit on recovery for underpayments says:
	“No proceedings may be brought…by the Secretary of State for the recovery of any underpayment”
	of the levy
	“after the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the end of the period in respect of which the levy was paid.”
	I wonder what that means for the very small number of bad hauliers, whether based in the UK or overseas, who try not to pay and think that if they can get away with it
	for 12 months, they will not have to pay at all. What is the thinking on this sunset clause on the recovery of underpayments? Has the Minister—I saw him nodding and smiling sagely—thought about looking at that again?
	I agree with the hon. Members for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) and for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and although I welcome the measure in principle, it would be far, far better if the vehicle excise duty rates that will apply when the Bill is introduced, were known. I hope—I shall simply reinforce what others have said—that the Minister will reiterate what has been said before, and say that the net impact will be an almost zero increase for home-based hauliers, which is precisely what we need to achieve the level playing field that the Bill is designed to deliver.

Iain Stewart: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make a short contribution to this useful debate. Road haulage is an issue of some interest to me, first as a proud member of the Transport Committee. It is, as the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), said, a subject that we have studied on a number of occasions. I will not detain the House by repeating the points that she made. Secondly, given the location of Milton Keynes and its strategic position, we are home to a large number of logistics and distribution companies. It is a hugely important sector of the local economy. That is in addition to the usual range of small and medium-sized hauliers to be found in urban areas throughout the country.
	Like many Members, I have long been aware of the competitive disadvantage that our hauliers have faced. I have received a considerable volume of representations from hauliers based in my constituency that there is a need to end this unfair situation. That covers a number of points. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) identified, it is a point of principle that people who use our roads should make a contribution to their maintenance and to expanding the road network. That is a basic common-sense view that is shared across the House.
	Secondly, many haulage companies operate on very tight margins. They make only a small profit on the goods that they transport, and when they are faced with unfair competition, that can be a critical determinant of whether they prosper or go under. I had conversations with a local firm that did go under, partly because of the unfair competition that it faced.
	A large part of the problem arises because modern lorries have such huge fuel tanks that it is perfectly possible for them to be filled up abroad and drive for considerable distances round our roads without ever having to fill up here. There is therefore no gain for the British Exchequer from duty paid. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside mentioned the cabotage problem. Because of the fuel advantage, they can bid effectively for UK domestic haulage as well as international transport.
	The strength of feeling that has been expressed to me by local hauliers is borne out by the strength of the responses to the Government’s consultation document. Well over two thirds of respondents agree that it is a serious problem that must be addressed. I was struck by one of the comments, which was that we need to get on
	with this quickly. It is an issue that has been debated for many years under Governments of both colours, and I am delighted that the Government have finally found a way to navigate their way round the labyrinthine complexities of EU law. I will not touch on some of the technical issues that might arise, but I hope those can be ironed out quickly when the Bill reaches its later stages.
	I want briefly to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick)—I was about to say for West Ham, but I think that is a football matter, rather than a constituency one. He touched on the topic of rail freight. There is an important link between the measure, rail freight and strategic freight transportation. I have long been of the view that road freight and rail freight need to operate in tandem. Rail freight is viable and makes sense when goods are transported over a long distance. It is in everyone’s interest that the road part of haulage, when goods are distributed from rail freight terminals, is done as efficiently as possible. It goes without saying that it is good for the environment and for solving congestion on roads if we can transport more long-distance goods by rail and free up capacity for the shorter distances by road.
	I have had some concern that because we have been at a competitive disadvantage in road haulage, that undermines the potential for international rail freight from the continent to this country and in reverse. I was on the Transport Committee’s visit to Europe last week, looking at rail issues. There we learned that in the Netherlands there is a new dedicated rail freight line across into Germany. In Switzerland new tunnels have been built through the Alps to aid freight travel from the north to the south of Europe. The potential difficulty is that if all these goods are transported by rail through Europe and they get to Rotterdam, say, and suddenly it is in the interest of haulage to switch to road because it can travel to the UK and pay a very low charge, that surely undermines the whole concept of an integrated freight system throughout Europe.
	The measure before us will go some way to addressing that possible problem. We can look strategically at freight across rail and road in the European context. There are ambitious plans to improve rail freight, and plenty of spare capacity through the tunnel. There are new types of freight trains where the lorries can drive on to the low-slung rail wagons, which is extremely efficient. That may not be the main point of the measure but I hope it will be an additional benefit from it. I am delighted to support it today. I hope it makes speedy progress through the House. The subject that has been kicked around for far too long. Our hauliers have been at a disadvantage for far too long and it is about time we put that right.

Andrew Bingham: I add my support for the measure, echoing Members across the Chamber. Call me biased for saying so, but my constituency produces probably the finest limestone in the world. The quarries try to move much of their product out by rail, but that is not possible, so the majority is moved out by road using their own wagons and by owner-drivers. More worryingly, there is an influx of foreign wagons. The measure is fantastic because it gives us the level playing field that our hauliers need.
	In a previous life I supplied engineering equipment, much of which went into haulage companies, and I realised how tight their margins were. They move the product and have very little room for profit, so foreign wagons can undermine their profitability and viability. We have heard about the other things that our hauliers have to pay. When they go abroad, they face road tolls and various other charges that must be paid. The diesel here is dearer, so the measure redresses the balance, giving us the level playing field that our contractors need.
	We must remember that haulage contractors employ a significant number of people, not just the guys who drive the wagons. I was particularly taken with a remark from the Opposition Benches earlier. The phrase that was used was “our professional hauliers”. There is a misconception that is slowly but surely disappearing. I remember my days on High Peak borough council, when we had discussions about wagons. Somebody made a comment about wagon drivers, and “professional” is a word that we should never forget to use when we talk about the wagon drivers and hauliers of this country. They are moving huge machines around the country with tonnes and tonnes of product on them, and they must be professional to do such a job. I was pleased to hear that point made earlier.
	I hope the Minister will address the question of revenue. I am pleased to see the compensatory factor. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who is no longer in his place, commented on the fact that we have had to introduce the measure to get round the vagaries of the EU. I, like him, will not miss the chance to bash the EU on this issue. I am glad we have found a way round, but it is a shame that we had to do so. It would have been nice if it had been simple and straightforward. Thank you, Brussels—for nothing.
	I want the revenue to go to our roads, because that is what it is all about. While the Minister is in his place, I shall make the first bid and propose that the Mottram and Tintwistle bypass is the first recipient of such extra revenue. He may wonder where that is, but I assure him that he will soon find out. His boss, the Secretary of State, well knows where it is, as his is the neighbouring constituency.
	There is one other point that has not been mentioned—it is more anecdotal than anything else. There is a small part of my constituency where we have difficulty with a low bridge. The local authority has tried everything to divert wagons, because when they get to the bridge, which is at a little place called Chapel Milton—I dare say this is the first time it has been mentioned in the Chamber—they find a dead end with no space to turn around. They then try to go under the bridge but end up taking the corner off it. Local hauliers increasingly realise that, but foreign hauliers rely on sat-nav, which does not pick up on the difficulty. The damage and upheaval caused is often the result of foreign drivers not understanding the danger. Perhaps that something that could be looked at, once we have paid for the Mottram and Tintwistle bypass, of course.
	The Bill will enable our hauliers to compete on a level playing field. We are going to have wagons on our roads, so let us make them UK wagons and give them a fair chance. There are some wrinkles in the proposals,
	to which colleagues have alluded, but I am sure that they will be ironed out bit by bit before the Bill reaches the statute book. The one thing I urge the Government to do is get this done as quickly as possible to give our wagon drivers and haulage contractors in High Peak and across the rest of the country the best chance of survival.

Brooks Newmark: Like everyone else in the Chamber, I think that the HGV Road User Levy Bill is extremely welcome. Like the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), I had not intended to speak, but then something rang in my brain, as I have many road hauliers in my constituency and I thought I would speak up for them. With regard to his comment about the brevity of the Minister’s introductory comments, it is clear that the Bill is so compelling that he needed only a minute to introduce it.
	There are two key arguments I have heard from many independent operators as well as larger hauliers, such as the Prince group, in my constituency: the equity argument, which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng); and the economic argument, which was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart), for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) and for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen). The equity argument is an important one that all road hauliers make, which is that it is simply unfair that road hauliers can come here from overseas and use our country’s roads but contribute nothing whatsoever to maintaining them. The Bill goes at least some way towards redressing that imbalance.
	In these tough economic times there is also the economic argument. It is unfair that our road hauliers face such marginal costs, especially given the high price of fuel, so trying to equalise what foreign users pay for using our roads will create a little more equilibrium and will not give them the extra marginal cost advantage they have in these tough economic times. Given the equity argument and the economic argument, I wholly endorse the Bill.
	Now that the Minister is in his place, I would like to thank him for the financial support he recently gave for the A120, which will help unclog the roads even if they are used by road hauliers.

Therese Coffey: I, too, have been tempted to contribute to the debate, as it relates to the port of Felixstowe in my constituency. The port is not known for its roll-off carriers and the immediate access it provides for foreign vessels to the A14, but the A14 is a key artery that starts in my constituency and cuts across to the midlands, passing not far from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen).
	As has already been referred to extensively, hauliers feel that it is right that foreign hauliers pay their fair share. Some points have already been made today about how we can ensure that a fair share is paid. I know that it is planned that the database will be given to a private contractor to follow this through, so I wonder whether at the same time it might be given a bonus for using the database to recover fines for other traffic regulation violations.
	It is important to send to our haulage companies the message that this is not a tax on them, that the Government are aware that they cannot keep imposing extra charges on British businesses and that there will be compensation the other way through lower vehicle excise duty. My understanding is that, although there will be no winners as a result of this scheme, there could be some losers, which is concerning for some of our larger firms. We need to ensure that we are careful in how we deploy the regulations that will be introduced.
	I can see that the Minister is a bit busy at the moment, but I am meeting him tomorrow with a delegation of MPs from Suffolk, and he will certainly be hearing from me that one of the proposals for the A14 might be to start tolling. I am a good Conservative and not necessarily against road tolling in all parts of the country, but the Government need to think about that where new capacity is brought in, and should not just pick key logistics routes. Therefore, if not all money raised through the levy is to go back to British hauliers through a reduction in VED—I know that the Minister has to be careful with the European Commission in how that happens—I will be asking him tomorrow instead to think about how some of it might be used to avoid tolling on a trans-European network road. I am delighted to support this ways and means motion.

Stephen Hammond: We have had an informed and educated debate with excellent contributions from both sides of the House. I am delighted that Members on both sides of the House welcome the Bill, but I am also delighted that it is this Government who have finally found a way to introduce it. As my colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), said in his short—perhaps too short for some colleagues—introductory contribution, the Bill will go a long way towards putting in place a fairer deal for UK hauliers and correcting the inequality that has existed for far too long.
	As a number of Members who have spoken rightly recognised, freight bodies have long called for the introduction of charging, provided that the cost burden on UK hauliers remains roughly neutral. Introducing this charge will clearly help to level the playing field by ensuring that both UK and foreign hauliers pay equally for using the UK’s road network. The Government believe that it is right that vehicles that cause wear to our roads should make a payment to take account of that. HGVs registered abroad are likely to carry more weight on fewer axles than UK-registered vehicles, which means that they are more damaging to the roads. Therefore, it is all the more unjust that they currently do not contribute towards the maintenance of the roads they use, leaving the burden to fall entirely on the British taxpayer.

Bob Stewart: I have been listening to the debate and assume that a foreign HGV will not be allowed to leave a port of entry without a sign on its windscreen showing that it has paid. Is that what the Bill means?

Stephen Hammond: I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that that is what the Bill means, and I will expand on that further in my remarks.

Karl McCartney: Can the Minister confirm whether it is true that the wear and tear caused to a stretch of road by one journey by an HGV vehicle equates to 100,000 car journeys?

Stephen Hammond: I would like to be able to confirm that statistic, which may or may not be true, but I cannot do so at the moment. I will seek divine inspiration at some stage and write to my hon. Friend.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Will the Minister give way?

Stephen Hammond: I will, although I was going to address the hon. Gentleman’s remarks in a moment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: As the Minister seeks inspiration, could he also try to find some inspiration on what impact the introduction of longer HGVs has had on road maintenance?

Stephen Hammond: I would prefer to write to the hon. Gentleman about that, as I might invite Madam Deputy Speaker’s strictures were I to deviate too far from what we are supposed to be talking about. Having listened to his experiences as a Minister, I know that he will be aware of how easy it can be to do so from this Dispatch Box. Tempting though it is, I shall resist it this afternoon.
	The largest and heaviest vehicles will pay a time-based levy of up to £10 per day or £1,000 per year. We consider that fair, proportionate and compliant with the relevant EU regulations. Foreign vehicles will be able to pay daily, weekly or monthly to enable them to maximise flexibility. Linking the levy and the vehicle excise duty payment, and working with the Treasury and the Chancellor to include reductions in VED payments in the 2014 Finance Bill, will ensure that the vast majority of UK hauliers will pay no more than they do today. There will be a zero administrative cost for most UK vehicles. Vehicles that currently pay VED usually do so annually. In future, UK hauliers’ VED will cover both the reduced level of VED and the new charge in one payment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: rose—

Stephen Hammond: I will give way, although I was going to try to clarify many of the points raised by the hon. Gentleman and others in a moment.

Huw Irranca-Davies: The Minister is being very generous. May I seek his explanation as to whether the technology that is being introduced by this ways and means measure is the same as that which could be used for further vehicle charging should the Government decide to embark on a wider road charging exercise?

Stephen Hammond: Yet again, the hon. Gentleman tempts me down a line that is grounded in speculation rather than anything else.

Jim Fitzpatrick: rose—

Stephen Hammond: I hope in a moment to respond to the hon. Gentlemen’s detailed remarks, and to those of the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), and I will invite them to intervene on me again if I do not do so.

Andrew Bridgen: rose —

Stephen Hammond: I will give way one last time before I make some progress.

Andrew Bridgen: I have a question that I did not ask during my brief speech. How often does the Minister envisage the road user levy will be reviewed by the Treasury? Will he consider calling it a Brit disc, which would be a nice patriotic name?

Stephen Hammond: I think that my hon. Friend will find that the levy will reflect some fluctuations in the exchange rate, but the level of VED is a matter for the Treasury and it is usually set annually. As to the change of name, we would like to get the Bill on the statute book with this name first before considering anything else.
	We will ensure that hard-working hauliers do not face an additional administrative burden, so the levy will be part of one payment when they renew their vehicle excise duty. To ensure that all the benefits of the levy are felt as soon as possible by carriers, the Government intend to bring forward the implementation date for foreign hauliers by almost a year to April 2014. Due to the time needed to change systems for UK hauliers’ payments and to hold a robust procurement of the provision of the payment facility to foreign-registered hauliers, it is not possible to bring the overall levy introduction date any further forward than April 2014.
	I should make it clear that this legislation is not designed as a precursor to increased charges on business. The charge has a clear, focused objective. The introduction of the levy is entirely separate from any other reviews that my Department might be undertaking. Whatever the outcome of those reviews, we will ensure that HGVs are not charged twice for using the UK road network.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I apologise for interrupting the Minister’s remarks. He has referred to two of my questions, one of which concerned the impact on HGV hauliers who are not covered and who will be paying extra, and the point that he has just made also reflects a question that I asked. I do not want to intervene on him repeatedly, so will he confirm that, as he said, he will answer my questions later?

Stephen Hammond: indicated  assent .

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am very grateful to the Minister for that clarification.

Stephen Hammond: We believe that the database developed as a result of collecting charges from foreign-registered hauliers will help us to understand their patterns of road use better and will contribute to our efforts to improve the safety and compliance of all commercial vehicles travelling on the UK’s roads.
	Finally, I should like to return to and, I hope, clarify some of the questions asked by hon. Members. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse opened his remarks with a welcome for these measures, and I am pleased that he did so. His speech was the sort of speech that we expect from him; it was intelligent and inquisitive. He asked a whole range of questions about the draft Bill.
	First, the hon. Gentleman asked about clause 3(2)(a). The clause allows us to consider the future exemption of roads. For example, Wales might want to introduce charging or we might agree with Northern Ireland that certain roads that cross the border should be exempted. On the administrative fee, I hope that my earlier remarks gave him confidence.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about clause 9 and the rebate. The Bill allows us to set the administrative conditions that will pertain for rebates. For UK vehicles, charged rebates will be allowed on the same basis as those for vehicle and excise duty. An administrative fee, if introduced at all, will only be set at a level to cover the administrative cost.
	The answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question about hypothecation and the money being paid into the consolidated fund is twofold. First, normal taxation rules apply and, secondly, the directive states:
	“Member States shall determine the use of revenues generated by this Directive.”
	I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that this Government’s spending review committed £30 billion for roads, rail and infrastructure. I should also like to highlight the other transport settlements and, indeed, the good news that we gave to local pinch-point schemes only 10 days ago.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sorry to interrupt the Minister again, but does that mean that the consolidated funds will not be hypothecated for transport issues, as has been requested by a number of his hon. Friends? Will the Department have to make a bid to the Treasury to get some of that money back?

Stephen Hammond: I have said that the normal rules will apply and that the directive allows the UK Government to spend the money in the way that they consider appropriate. The money will go into the consolidated fund. The Department for Transport has enjoyed robust discussions with the Treasury and got an excellent settlement for the infrastructure of this country. I have no doubt that we will continue to have robust discussions in the future and I am sure that we will continue to receive a good settlement for transport.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the number of hauliers paying more per year. The analysis so far shows, as he has pointed out, that 98% of hauliers would pay no more than £50 a year and that 94% would pay nothing at all. My understanding—I am sure that we will explore this and I may be able to inform the hon. Gentleman later of the latest numbers—is that the maximum loss for conventional HGVs that are either articulated or rigid and do not have a trailer would be £79 a year, based on current exchange rates. Unfortunately, however, our analysis of 7,000 rigid vehicles that tow a trailer has found that 40 vehicles would probably suffer a penalty of some £300, but that is only 40 out of 7,000, which is a significantly small part of the overall haulage fleet of the United Kingdom.
	The hon. Gentleman also asked about the rebate that might be applicable to UK hauliers using foreign roads. As is the case with vehicle and excise duty, it is not possible to get such a refund, so the charge would be cheaper than any daily charge. UK hauliers are unlikely to benefit from such a refund.
	The hon. Gentleman then asked some general questions, some of which I tackled earlier. On the staging of the levy, he will have heard me say that we have brought the date forward so that there will be a simultaneous introduction in April 2014. He will have also heard me set out the conditions for paying VED at the same time as the levy, so they will net each other out.
	My Department does not believe that the opt-out from the European directive on traffic law enforcement will have any implications. We have a robust strategy of enforcement. Vehicles must pay before using a road in the UK and we can stop any that do not and immobilise them until a fine is paid. Again, I am sure that we will explore that matter in Committee.
	The hon. Gentleman made some closing remarks about the environment. There is no change to the incentives for greener vehicles. We are committed to considering charging based on polluting carbon vehicles in the future, but for the moment the charging that will be put in place is practical and enforceable. I believe that there will be no disincentives for the green lobby.
	I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). I thank him for his welcome. He echoed the remark from my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) about the complex way in which we are doing this, because of the EU rules. However, I am sure that he, like me, is delighted that we are doing it anyway and will raise a cheer for that.
	The Chair of the Transport Committee raised a number of points. We will tackle cabotage and the safety issues that she raised on Second Reading and in Committee. However, I say to her directly that we will ensure that the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency has all the necessary resources to ensure that its enforcement procedures are workable. We believe that the measures will ensure that the collection procedures are completely workable.

Seema Malhotra: Will the Minister clarify whether in his future discussions about safety he will raise improving the safety of cyclists, who are particularly at risk from HGVs?

Stephen Hammond: I thank the hon. Lady for those remarks. Her colleague the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) raised that issue and I am about to respond to his points, so I will address her remarks at the same time.
	I welcome the recognition by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) that this is a commitment being delivered upon. He is no longer in his place, but I was delighted that he recognised that. He asked the rhetorical question: is it right that foreign users contribute to our roads? Of course it is. That is why this measure is being put in place and I am delighted that we are doing it now.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore opened his excellent contribution with his impassioned support for businesses along the M4 corridor. I will try to answer some of his questions. He, too, asked about enforcement, with particular reference to the police’s role in enforcement beyond VOSA. The police, of course, can enforce this legislation and prosecute offenders. It will not be their main objective,
	and the primary responsibility for enforcing it will lie not with the police but with VOSA, as I have made clear.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether, if foreign hauliers could pay the bill on a daily, weekly, monthly or annual basis, there would be issues to do with the setting of the rate and the ability to do so. I would say two things to him in response. First, we are allowing that flexibility to ensure that we capture everybody who intends to come to the country. Secondly, at the same time the level of the payments will be set annually in the Finance Bill.
	The hon. Gentleman made some remarks about how we will offset the compensation for UK hauliers. I hope that my remarks to the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse will have clarified that matter for him. Equally, on the question of the charge level, as he knows, the Eurovignette sets a maximum of €11 a day for time-based charges. The maximum that that is likely to increase to owing to inflation is €12. Unlike other EU countries, we are not going to have a lower daily rate, but will look at the daily rate that is permissible.
	The hon. Member for Ogmore rightly asked what action I and my officials had taken to reassure ourselves that the levy was not discriminatory. I took quite a lot of action because, as he might well guess, my first concern was that if there had been a significant time delay it would have discriminated against UK hauliers. I am delighted that my officials, working with EU officials, have now been able to secure the agreement that we can introduce the duty for both groups in 2014. I confirm that to ensure that was the case, officials spoke to the Commission before the consultation, and it indicated that it was content with our emerging proposals.
	The hon. Gentleman asked about the amounts that we intend to charge. We are clear that they are as set out in the directive and that our plans comply fully with it.
	I will now answer a question that I thought the hon. Gentleman might ask, just to help him along—I am in that kind of mood this afternoon. I thought he was going to ask me why the Welsh Government might think it necessary to lay a legislative consent motion. He did not, but let me put it on record that in our view, that is not necessary. The HGV road user levy is a tax, and taxation is a reserved matter. I believe the Welsh Assembly is concerned that there will be some problems because EU law prevents double-charging for the same stretch of road except in certain circumstances. However, we have said that if a devolved Administration wanted to introduce a charge or toll, we would modify the HGV road user levy as necessary so that could be done. I confirm that my officials and Welsh officials have spoken about the matter in the past week. The Scottish and Northern Irish Governments have decided that no legislative consent motion is necessary, but it is of course for the Welsh Government to decide whether they wish to pursue one. I thought I might take the opportunity to put that on record.
	I believe that I have covered all the hon. Gentleman’s queries, except about cycle safety campaigning. He will know that I was delighted to be able to be at the National Transport Awards the week before last, along with my fellow Under-Secretary of State for Transport who was perhaps on more verbose form that night than in the House today, and to present an award to Philip Pank,
	the journalist from
	The Times
	. The hon. Gentleman will also know that in my second week in the job, I was delighted to be able to launch the Think Cyclist campaign.
	As I have indicated, road safety is a key road policy priority for the Government, and the hon. Gentleman will have noted that we have made significant extra money available to local councils in the past six months for local cycle safety solutions. I am happy to work with the industry throughout the Bill’s progress and thereafter to ensure that road hauliers are aware of the need for cycle safety. I am aware, of course, that many of them already recognise that imperative.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), spoke about his passion for road haulage. He raised a couple of matters on which I may be able to give him some clarity this afternoon. Although he recognised that there would be a charge of £200 for roadside infringements and a maximum fine of £5,000 for cases that go to court, he was concerned about how we would be able to enforce that. We will be able to take deposits from road hauliers if they do not have a UK address and, as has been pointed out, we intend to pursue them so that the charges are made payable before they enter the UK road system. The necessary enforcement measures will be in place if anyone attempts to enter for a second time without paying those charges.
	My hon. Friend also asked about Northern Ireland. I have already put it on record that we believe that this is a tax matter, and therefore a reserved matter that will apply right across the UK. However, as I said when the Welsh Government raised the issue, the Government have no intention of reducing the ability of the devolved Administrations to introduce tolling or charging if they so wish.
	My hon. Friend asked specifically about the Irish Government, who have written to the Department asking for the charge not to apply in Northern Ireland. That is partly because they make a financial contribution to some road improvements in Northern Ireland, which they do because Irish hauliers use those roads and benefit from them. Furthermore, Ireland already has road charges in the form of tolls, and should the new charge apply in Northern Ireland, it would be roughly the same amount as those existing tolls—a round trip between Belfast to Dublin would incur roughly the same amount. We have suggested that if the Irish Government were to propose a set of roads that criss-cross the border, we will look to exempt them from the charge.
	The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) raised a point about the 12-month period, and I will explore that matter further and write to him if he will accept that. My hon. Friend the Member for High Peak spoke about the finest quality limestone and how it gets moved around the country. I hope that his local press statement will say, “If it’s thank you Brussels for nothing, it’s thank you to this Government for something”—I am sure that is how he will phrase it. I have obviously heard his strictures about the new bypass from Mottram to Tintwistle, and the bridge at Chapel Milton. I have no doubt that an invitation to come and visit those places is already winging its way from High Peak to Great Minster House, and I look forward to receiving it.

Jim Shannon: The Minister referred to a previous matter in relation to the Irish Government. A new bridge is to be built across the narrows, near Warrenpoint, and the Irish Government are going to pay for that. There will be no toll on that bridge. Is there an agreement with the Irish Government that they provide the bridge and there will be no toll?

Stephen Hammond: Well—[ Interruption. ] Mr Deputy Speaker, you are right on all matters, and certainly on that one. If I may, I will write to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) as I am afraid I do not know the answer. Although I could stand here and talk about something, it is better to say that I will write to him when I have the answer.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) congratulated a number of his road hauliers—rightly so—and he got to the essence of the argument, which is about equity and economics. He was right to point that out and place it on the record, and I am delighted that his constituency has benefited from the pinch points plan that the Government announced two weeks ago.
	This has been a well-informed debate and we heard two contributions, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes East (Iain Stewart), about modal shift.

Iain Stewart: South.

Stephen Hammond: Sorry. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South—an important distinction—made an important point about modal shift and the encouragement of rail freight, and I combine that with the contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who is no longer in her place. She made a point about the A14 being a key artery, and I will be delighted to meet her over the next couple of days to discuss that matter. She also made the point about a modal shift now that improvements have been made to the rail system out of Felixstowe. That is absolutely right, and I am convinced that the Bill does nothing to impair modal shift, but will enhance it.

Andrew Bridgen: One important question has not been asked in this debate, and if the Minister knows the answer, perhaps he will share it with the House. What is the estimate for the amount of money that will be raised from foreign hauliers by the introduction of the road user levy?

Stephen Hammond: That is an important question, and my hon. Friend is right to say that it has not been raised so far. The Department estimates that somewhere between £18.7 million and £23.1 million will be raised at current prices, but I am sure that as the years go by, that sum will increase.
	I believe I have comprehensively reviewed my colleagues’ contributions—

Brooks Newmark: rose —

Stephen Hammond: I was just about to finish.

Brooks Newmark: The clock is still ticking, Minister.

Lindsay Hoyle: Not for long.

Brooks Newmark: We have at least another 20 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: The hon. Gentleman has used his intervention up, but I will let him have another go. [ Laughter. ]

Brooks Newmark: Hon. Members have articulated the views of the road haulage industry in their respective constituencies. Will the Minister spend a couple of minutes going into a little more detail on the consultation he had with the industry and on its input, and explain why the Bill is the silver bullet that will make the road haulage industry in the UK happy?

Stephen Hammond: I would like to tell my hon. Friend the dates, places and times of the meetings, but unfortunately the excellent preparatory work on the Bill was done prior to my time in this role—it was done by the current Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office and officials when he was an Under-Secretary of State for Transport. As I have said, an extensive consultation took place and has been published. The measure received widespread support, albeit with a number of questions on how the scheme might work and be implemented, which has been reflected in the debate—a number of the questions were similar to those raised by road hauliers.
	However, I am delighted that we have reached the stage we have reached today. The Bill is widely recognised in the House as a welcome measure for UK hauliers and UK industry. All hon. Members have welcomed it. I recognise that this is a slightly unusual way to introduce legislation, but it has enabled us to have an extensive and inquisitive debate.

Andrew Percy: We look forward to welcoming the Minister to Brigg and Goole shortly—he will be getting an invitation in the post. Will he respond to the question I posed to him earlier on whether we could expect an increase in dual-registered vehicles as a result of the measure?

Stephen Hammond: My hon. Friend is right and I apologise for having failed to respond to that part of his excellent contribution. I am not sure I have at my fingertips the exact number of dual-registered vehicles in the UK, or the number of those likely to enter the UK, or the likely growth in the number of dual-registered vehicles—[ Interruption. ] It is just as my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire points out. However, as I have said to several hon. Members, I am happy to write to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole. I am sure my letter will include my response to his kind invitation to visit Brigg and Goole, which I look forward to doing. One of the great pleasures of this job is the chance to visit all parts of the UK.

Martin Vickers: In order to arrive in the Brigg and Goole constituency, the Minister will travel along the A180, which is heavily used by road hauliers in Stallingborough and Immingham dock in my constituency. One problem is that the A180 has a very old concrete surface that causes great disturbance to local residents. The £18 million to £23 million that he will raise from the measure will more than cover the cost of improvement. I therefore invite the Minister to visit Cleethorpes and Brigg and Goole, and to journey on that rough road.

Stephen Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for that detailed explanation of the problems with the A180. I have no doubt that the chief executive of the Highways Agency will be on to me in the morning to tell me what his plans may be at some stage in the near or distant future for that road. I am bound to reflect that when I was in this role in opposition, I was spokesman for the rail industry, and by the end of it I had a near-encyclopaedic knowledge of almost every rail station and route in this country. I am increasingly finding in government that that opportunity is being extended to me on the road system. I am really looking forward to visiting the A180 on the way to Brigg and Goole. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend will invite me to stop in his constituency as well.
	We have had a long and interesting debate this afternoon and we have fully explored the legislation that is the subject of this ways and means resolution. I was delighted that my ministerial colleague was able to introduce the debate earlier and I am also delighted to commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That provision may be made for charging a duty of excise, to be known as HGV road user levy, in respect of heavy goods vehicles used or kept on public roads in the United Kingdom.
	Ordered, That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing Resolution;
	That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Secretary Hague, Mrs Secretary May, Mr Secretary Grayling, Mr Secretary Moore, Mr Secretary McLoughlin, Mrs Secretary Villiers, Mr Secretary Jones and Stephen Hammond introduce the Bill.

Hgv Road User Levy Bill

Stephen Hammond accordingly presented a Bill to make provision charging a levy in respect of the use or keeping of heavy goods vehicles on public roads in the United Kingdom, and for connected purposes.
	Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 77) with explanatory notes (Bill 77-EN).

Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Bill (Money)

Brandon Lewis: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prevention of Social Housing Fraud Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.
	The Government are keen to move forward with this much needed Bill as quickly as possible. Social landlords are very much in favour of this Bill and while I fully expect them to use the new powers the Bill provides, there will be no obligation on them to do so. Local authorities will be able to choose whether or not to prosecute the new criminal offences in the Bill, and decide if and when to use any of the enhanced data access powers that the amendments tabled last week would seek to confer on them by way of regulation.
	Local authorities may incur some administrative costs if they choose to use the new data access powers. Any costs are unlikely to be significant and, in practice, I would expect councils to build on the arrangements already in place for housing benefit fraud. I remind the House that local authorities already have the power to prosecute, seek civil remedies and, for housing benefit investigation purposes, compel certain bodies to provide information on request. We are therefore not conferring new functions on them. I firmly believe that any costs incurred as a result of this Bill will be proportionate when set against the damage caused by those people who choose to abuse the social housing system.

Jack Dromey: This is a necessary Bill that builds on what Labour did in government. In 2009, the then Housing Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), took action with the first ever national crackdown on tenancy cheats, and 150 councils signed up. Before the 2010 election, Labour committed to make the subletting of social homes a criminal offence and we therefore support the Bill.
	With ever lengthening waiting lists, it is wrong to deny those in need. It is wrong to sub-let unlawfully—where a tenant becomes a landlord—and it is particularly wrong in London, where there is evidence of organised gangs preying on estates, encouraging tenants to move out and then letting out the homes, frequently changing the nature of those estates and streets as a consequence, to the disadvantage of the vast majority of the social tenants still living there.
	We are grateful to the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) for how he has gone about the Bill, including for the all-party dialogue. In that dialogue, we expressed but two concerns, both of which he has taken on board. The first is that although it is right to criminalise those who let these tenancies, we must avoid criminalising those who might inadvertently take out a tenancy without knowing that it has been unlawfully let. Our second reservation is that—dare I say it?—there is sometimes a tendency on the part of some Government
	Members to demonise social housing and social tenants. That is wrong. The Bill seeks to tackle the behaviour of a small minority—albeit a small minority engaged in absolutely unacceptable behaviour—but the vast majority of social tenants are decent men and women. In my experience, they are the first to complain about the nature of their area being changed, including as a consequence of the kind of behaviour that the Bill rightly seeks to criminalise.
	The Bill will now be considered in Committee, and we will be supporting this necessary measure.

Richard Harrington: I would like to thank the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), for their kind comments, because I have tried to build a consensus around the Bill.
	There is a problem. Various estimates from such erstwhile bodies as the National Audit Office show that between 50,000 and 150,000 social houses are being illegally sub-let. The victims of this crime are the people on the waiting list for social housing, many of whom deeply deserve it. When researching the subject at the beginning of the private Member’s Bill process, I was surprised to find that this was not already a criminal offence. As the shadow Minister said, this is not an attack on social housing; it is actually quite the opposite. The intention is to free up social housing for those who genuinely need and deserve it, but who, at the moment, are in inadequate accommodation.

Chi Onwurah: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the way he has introduced his private Member’s Bill. The support of the Labour party has been articulated by the shadow Minister. From my constituency experience, I agree strongly that those on the housing waiting list resent greatly the idea that social housing is being let to people other than social tenants. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, however, that unfortunately this measure will not make a huge difference to people on housing waiting lists, of whom there are 9,000 in Newcastle, or to the length of those lists?

Richard Harrington: I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I can back them up, because it would appear, having spoken to many housing associations and local authorities, that most of their information on illegal sub-letting comes from neighbours and fellow tenants in the building. So I agree totally with her. I must also agree with her substantive point about the difference the Bill will make to the need for social housing, but one can only do what is in one’s power. This is a limited Bill, but it will free up a lot of social housing. My constituency has 4,500 people on the list, and it seems to me that if it makes some difference, that is better than no difference at all. I hope she will agree however, that the most important thing is that it will deter new tenants from thinking that they can sub-let at will for personal profit, when their needs might be such that they are no longer entitled to social housing, despite there being plenty of people who are entitled to it. So the Bill creates new offences of illegally sub-letting, and there are ample safeguards within it that take the shadow Minister’s
	points into account. Members of all persuasions—indeed, the full political spectrum of the House—have supported this Bill. With that in mind, I have said enough. Our Bill Committee is tomorrow, and I hope we make progress with it.

John Healey: I rise to underline the support of Labour Back Benchers for the hon. Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) and to congratulate him on bringing in this Bill. As my very good friend, the shadow Housing Minister said, I was the Minister in 2009 who introduced the first ever national campaign against fraud of this type. The number of properties recovered as a result of that campaign went up by 75%, but there is still quite a long way to go—and this Bill will help.
	This is, of course, a money resolution and there should be a net financial gain to the state from this Bill, despite the costs that the resolution will allow to be incurred. The Audit Commission’s estimate of the number of properties in respect of which social landlords have lost control of the allocation is about 50,000—a figure from about three years ago. As a minimum, then, for the costs of temporary accommodation local authorities will be out of pocket by about £900 million each year.
	The penalties in the Bill will help to deter people from cheating the system and cheating their neighbours. It will help the detection of those who are cheating taxpayers and will help to take action against them. More than that, however, those who badly need the homes that are available for them and that they should have are being cheated when these homes are sub-let illegally for the private profit of those who cheat the system. I hope we make progress in the Bill Committee tomorrow, and I hope we pass the money resolution to aid that progress.

Andrew Percy: I, too, am delighted to support this measure. This must be a record in that I have been able to support in quick succession two items promoted by the Government. We seem to be making progress, Mr Deputy Speaker. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington), who has worked incredibly hard and pushed forward on this matter; he deserves credit for so doing.
	I spent 10 years as a local city councillor, during which time I represented a large council estate. On that estate, housing fraud was a problem—though not a massive problem—and it was difficult to get to grips with it, as we were often unaware that it was going on. We would sometimes find neighbours or other residents saying that they thought someone was letting a property out. Sometimes it was to a family member, further
	down the family tree, which often made things even more complex. All we could do, of course, was to pursue the problem from a tenancy breach point of view. Frankly, it is staggering that we have got to this stage with it never having been illegal to sub-let. When a property is sub-let, other issues arise about the quality of the property, for example. There are strict rules on landlord liabilities, which obviously do not apply when a property has been illegally sub-let.
	I like the shadow Minister a lot, but I do not agree with his phraseology when he talks about the “demonising” of social tenants. I thought it was a bit cheap to get that into a debate like this when we are all on the same page. There is certainly no demonising of social tenants from me. I come from a family with lots of social tenants—my dad and my grandparents—and I would not be a member of a party that demonised people living in council houses or other social properties. I thought that was a little bit unfair. As others have said, this Bill supports decent tenants and decent folk. That is why I think it attracts the support it does across the House.
	I take the point of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah)—the constituency with the middle bit of Newcastle—about waiting lists. The Bill might not have a massive impact on those lists, but it deals with behaviour that we all agree is unacceptable. I thus entirely support it.

Brandon Lewis: I join everyone else in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Richard Harrington) on bringing this Bill forward, and I thank all Members who have spoken in this afternoon’s debate. It seems that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and I have been in agreement in two successive debates, along the same lines mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy). The shadow Minister might become my hon. Friend before long—who knows? I look forward to taking the Bill through Committee tomorrow morning.
	Question put and agreed to.

Business without Debate
	 — 
	Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Pensions

That the draft Occupational and Personal Pension Schemes (Automatic Enrolment) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2012, which were laid before this House on 2 July, be approved.—(Mr Syms.)
	Question agreed to.

LEAD SHOT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

Jim Shannon: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this issue, Mr Deputy Speaker. I did not expect to be called to speak so early, but the Whips of both main parties ensured that I was here on time.
	I am country sports enthusiast and proud of it, as those who follow such issues will know. As we all know, Members of Parliament work in a stressful environment and it is essential that we have a release valve for that pressure. For me, that is country sports, and I take part whenever the opportunity arises. It does not arise as often as it did in the past, because I am in London. In my maiden speech, I said that the pheasants and ducks of my constituency would have two to three days a week when I would not be chasing them and they were probably more than gratified to learn that.
	It is good to be out in the fields, pursuing country sports. That was how I grew up. I remember my cousin, Kenneth Smyth from County Tyrone in the west of the Province, giving a new meaning to the phrase “pigeon post”. When I was a young boy, he would send wood pigeons to me in the east of the Province in Ballywalter. They took two or three days in the post—they came first class—and although sometimes they were not palatable, they were okay when cooked. I survived. That is the truth, and “pigeon post” for me clearly meant a dead pigeon coming from the west of the Province to the east.
	I have been eating shot pigeon for years, and pheasant and duck, too, and it has never done me any harm. However, I am prepared to accept the lead shot ban and wait until all the information has come in and been assessed by the lead shot working group. Members might therefore be wondering why we are having this Adjournment debate, and I have secured it because we need to present a balanced view given how the issue is portrayed by certain papers and magazines across the country. There are those who have created a scare without waiting for the full results to come out and I wanted to ensure that the House heard both sides of the argument. I have therefore been in touch with shooting sports organisations as well as the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and I am prepared to give a balanced review of the issue. I state again that there is no final result yet, but we need balance in the debate and in the argument and we must ensure that all points of view are heard.
	The use of lead shot is being considered because of issues that have been raised about environmental and human health effects. As they are in question, I support any investigation. I would not want to be like those doctors who backed cigarettes in the past, saying that they were good for people’s health when the reverse is patently true. However, neither would I like to be like those who jump in with two feet, causing a needless fuss and a scare. A balance should be struck between those two reactions and it is that balance that I seek to provide to the House today.
	Regulations across most of Europe prevent lead from falling in wetlands and shooters support that. Some shooters were perhaps not all that pleased when lead
	shot was banned and they had to turn to steel, but they did it successfully, honestly and truthfully. Steel shot is now the preferred choice of many. Many bird watchers are also bird shooters and understand that sustaining a good environment is essential for both sports. I have been informed, however, that there is little evidence to suggest that lead, when used outside wetlands, causes any significant damage to bird populations.
	The unique way that certain water birds feed means that some species are susceptible to ingesting lead if it is deposited in their feeding area and that has been highlighted as a source of poisoning for some wildfowl species, including several migratory birds. It important to consider all the factors that affect migratory birds, however, as the ingestion of lead might have happened not in this country but in other countries. To address that problem, the African-Eurasian water bird agreement, or AEWA, aimed to reduce the amount of lead ammunition used in wetland areas where such wildfowl feed. The feeding habits of non-wetland birds are very different, as they are not affected by lead in the silt layers of wetlands.
	However, in order to comply with the AEWA, we have rightly prohibited the use of ammunition containing lead for the killing of certain species in specific areas. In England and Wales—we are here in the mother of Parliaments representing the four regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland—the use of lead shot is prohibited below the high water mark of ordinary spring tides, over specified sites of special scientific interest and for the shooting of the following species, regardless of where they occur. The species are mallard, widgeon, gadwall, shoveler, teal, pochard, pintail, tufted duck, and golden eye and the four species of goose—greylag, pink-footed, white-fronted and Canada—but also golden plover and coots and moorhen. In Scotland and Northern Ireland the use of lead shot is prohibited over wetlands, which are defined there as any areas of foreshore, marsh, fen, peatland with standing water, regularly or seasonally flooded fields and other water sources whether they be natural or manmade, static or flowing, fresh, brackish or salt. I am trying to make it clear that legislation exists to protect water birds from this very threat. Action has been taken here at Westminster and in the regions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	Reading through the report, however, there appear to be many inconsistencies and inferences are made from the testing of a very small number of birds. Perhaps work has not been done on the large number of birds that would amount to true evidence for the case.
	The Countryside Alliance would say that many of the wildfowl tested in the study are migratory species—that is its opinion; many of us would agree with that—and as such have travelled many miles from different locations. Although the Wildlife and Wetland Trust provides assurances that these birds ingested the lead in the UK, with respect, Mr Deputy Speaker, there is simply no way of proving that. Moreover, lead poisoning can come from many sources, as previous research has shown that birds from urban areas have higher levels of lead in their blood. Lead can be got from the water and from other things. This is not acknowledged, and perhaps it should have been.
	For those species that are non-migratory, it must be asked how the birds, which were tested only from wildlife and wetland trust reserves, obtained the lead shot while
	resident on the reserves. As the reserves are not shot over, the most probable explanation is that the lead was dropped in those areas before any legislation was introduced.
	Sir Peter Scott was the founder of the Wildlife and Wetland Trust and a very keen wildfowler—indeed, one of the greatest wildfowlers that we have ever had. I have read some of his books, and they are most interesting. A bust of Sir Peter Scott is displayed at Castle Espie in Comber in my constituency of Strangford. It was put there in recognition of his good work and his contribution. He would have used lead ammunition in his day, long before the legislation was changed and lead shot was banned. This is further evidenced by the fact that no evidence of any other shot type was found in the birds’ gizzards. After 10 years of use of steel shot, would there not be some steel shot in the gizzards of the birds? There does not seem to be, but given that alternatives have been widely used for more than 10 years, this would be expected, and it further confirms that birds obtained the shot from the reserves. However, the Countryside Alliance has informed me that it is upholding the ban and will read the final report in full before making any representations.
	I have been contacted by the Wildlife and Wetland Trust regarding its fears about the effects of lead on the animal and human body and, for the sake of parity I, like others, have carefully considered its point of view. It states:
	“Lead is toxic to all animals including humans. Even low levels of exposure affect animals and no threshold has been identified below which the effects of lead cannot be seen. The vast majority of shot fired from shotguns falls into the environment, and thus, in the case of lead, causes long term cumulative contamination. Wildfowl, and other birds, ingest lead shot that has been deposited in their feeding areas (such as wetlands and terrestrial habitats including agricultural land), probably mistaken for grit or food.”
	It is really nothing new, to be fair. Lead poisoning from shot ingestion has been known to kill wildfowl for more than a century. It has happened for more than 100 years and long before that. In Europe it has been estimated that approximately 1 million wildfowl from 17 species and just short of 9% of the wildfowl population could die every winter from eating the lead that is already in the seashore and the sea.
	Although some of the information on which the estimate was based is old, and shot ingestion rates may now be higher or lower in some species, none the less mortality is high. Not only does lead poisoning cause considerable avoidable wildfowl suffering and mortality, concern has been expressed about its potential to contribute to the decline of certain common wildfowl species; for example, the pochard and the pintail, both of which are amber-listed. They are BOCC—birds of conservation concern—to use the correct terminology.
	Lead poisoning is known to be a serious threat to certain globally threatened European wildfowl, in particular the white-headed duck. It also causes sub-lethal effects in many other birds and represents a significant welfare problem. We are not walking away from that; we are trying to address the issues and make a balanced argument.
	In recent times, a body of evidence has been accumulated detailing lead poisoning in terrestrial birds, including upland game birds, which ingest spent lead shot when feeding in shot-over habitats, and the raptors that prey on or scavenge game species, thereby ingesting lead fragments from ammunition. Eight of the non-wildfowl species documented as ingesting lead or suffering lead
	poisoning from ammunition sources in the wild breed regularly in the United Kingdom, and are red or amber-listed as BOCC. Clearly it is important to avoid or reduce mortality in those species from all causes.
	The negative human health impacts from lead are well established and have resulted in policies to reduce exposure, such as its removal from paint or petrol. The potential risks associated with consuming game shot with lead ammunition have received more attention recently, following an international conference held in the USA by the Peregrine Fund in 2008. As a small proportion of the lead from gunshot fragments is invisible to the human eye, consumers of game may inadvertently eat small lead shards or particles.

Simon Hart: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even in the most pessimistic estimations a normal human being would have to eat a colossal amount of game even to register in the danger zone? May I offer a crumb of comfort? I suspect I am one of the few Members of Parliament who actually carries 15 bits of lead in my left knee. It was shot there when I was 15 and does not seem to have had any ill effects on my health.

Jim Shannon: I read the hon. Gentleman’s excellent article in the Shooting Times and Country Magazine last week. It shows his commitment to country sports over the years. The lead in his leg has done him no harm, just as the lead in the pigeons, ducks and pheasants that I have eaten has done me no harm.
	Research in the United Kingdom showed that a high proportion of the game sold for human consumption had lead concentrations exceeding the European Union maximum. We are well aware of the issue. The European Food Safety Authority expert on contaminants published a scientific opinion on lead in food and has stated that other animals in the food chain—sheep, pigs and poultry—carry lead too. The report details the potential health risks that may be associated with a diet rich in game, but people would need to eat a lot of pheasants or venison every year before they were affected, or in my case, a lot of wood pigeons. They would have to eat a dozen a day.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank my hon. Friend for getting this important subject on to the Order Paper. It is important that the House is aware of the issues he is raising. Does he agree, however, that there could be a self-created crisis by elements in various agencies who want to justify their existence? They point to potential problems if we eat too much of something, but by definition too much of anything is bad for us.

Jim Shannon: It is good to put things into perspective. Too much wine is bad for us. Too much chocolate is bad for us. Too many chips are not always that good for us either. As someone who ate plenty of sweet stuff and is now a diabetic, I know that the sweet stuff I ate over the years was not good for me. Many in the land have to look at those things too; my hon. Friend’s words put things into perspective.
	An article I read last week also helps to put the issue into perspective. It referred to the Food Standards Agency, and there was an important reply:
	“There is lead in all foodstuffs and we should see the purported risk of lead in game meat in a sensible perspective…There is no
	evidence of harm to those of us who eat game less than once every week. Compared with other meats wild game is low in fats and entirely natural, representing a healthy option to intensively reared products.”
	That certainly makes for interesting reading. There is no better stuff to eat than game. If Members have not eaten a pheasant this year, they should try one. If they have not had duck, now is the time. If they have not had wood pigeon, they should go down the shop and buy one. They will enjoy it; it is excellent. If they are lucky enough to be able to afford venison, that is good, too; I recommend it to everyone in the House.
	The body set up to deal with the issue, the Lead Ammunition Group, is taking the matter seriously. It is not ignoring people’s concerns, but it is putting things into perspective. I am sure that the report that will come out will address the subject. I was given a report by the European Food Safety Authority that clearly shows that although game has a higher lead content—we accept that—it is not seen as a contributory factor to having too much lead in one’s diet. Bread, tea, tap water and potatoes provide a significant amount of lead in the diet and they are all things that we sit down and consume on a Sunday, and eat and drink regularly; they have an impact on us, too.
	That is one reason why I believe that although there is no need for a knee-jerk reaction, there is cause for investigation. The Food Standards Agency recently issued advice to high-level consumers of game, and I have already quoted what it said. Perhaps that will put the danger into perspective. I stress that the advice is aimed only at those who eat large amounts of small game—more than 100 or 120 pheasants, partridges or ducks a year—and large game, such as venison, is not included. Even the most fervent game-eater would never consume that much, and even if they did, the rest of their diet keeps things in balance.
	Now that the advice has been given, small game is added to a list of many other foods, including oily fish and tuna, that the FSA suggests should not be eaten more than twice a week. It also joins the myriad foods that woman are advised to avoid while pregnant; there is no one present in the Chamber to which that would apply. According to data from the European Food Safety Authority, which provided the bulk of the evidence for the report that I am referring to, eating the suggested daily minimum of five portions of fruit and vegetables and drinking one litre of tap water provides enough dietary lead to exceed the threshold for young children by a factor of two. If a person eats their five a day, and drinks water, they will already be over the limit, before game is added. Other foods, including chocolate and mushrooms, have a very high level of lead; some chocolate has more, weight for weight, than pheasant. The EFSA rates many everyday foods as being among those that contribute most to lead levels in the average diet, and game is not among the ones that Europe is looking at.
	Game is enjoyed by many people across the country as a lean and flavoursome alternative to other meats, and I recommend it. I have been consuming game for many years, and I am not aware of any person who suffers health-related issues as a result of consuming game shot with lead ammunition; neither is any shooting body with which I have spoken. In addition, data from
	the NHS hospital episode statistics show that there is a very low number of lead poisoning cases, compared with cases of poisoning caused by other toxic substances. To put this into perspective, between 1998 and 2011, 19.6 people a year on average were admitted for treatment for the toxic effects of lead. By comparison, 125 people a year on average are admitted for the toxic effect of soap and detergent, 982 for the toxic effect of ethanol, 69 for the toxic effect of ingested mushrooms, and 40 for the toxic effect of snake venom. That puts the issue of lead poisoning and lead’s presence in game into perspective. In the vast majority of cases, those admitted to hospital for treatment for the toxic effect of lead were male and in their late 20s and early 30s, which perhaps suggests that occupational hazards involving lead are the greatest risk factor in UK poisonings.
	Investigations must take into account butchery and cookery methods involved in processing any game meat shot with lead ammunition. It is usual for wound channels to be removed when processing meat; I know many butchers who do that. Best practice may mitigate any risk and ensure that levels are consistent with those in conventional meats.
	There are serious concerns that alternatives to lead ammunition, especially tungsten, could have serious implications for human health—and environmental health, for that matter, because this is an environmental issue—that have not been thoroughly explored or studied. It is important that the Lead Ammunition Group is given time to complete its study. Such studies must be completed before any widespread move is made to any alternative form of ammunition.
	There is a real threat that the most recent leak to the media will subvert the work of the Lead Ammunition Group, which follows a clearly established process and is assessing the issues surrounding lead ammunition. I am hoping to prevent that from happening by showing both sides of the argument. We should rely on the scientific data and research that the group has collated as well as taking on board the views of the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust, the British Association of Shooting and Conservation, the Countryside Alliance and many other bodies. It is clear from correspondence from all bodies that until the Lead Ammunition Group publishes its results and recommendations, the lead shot ban will be actively upheld and even promoted by everyone involved in shooting sports. It is essential that the LAG is given the respect and time that it needs to reach its conclusions, free from pressure from any side, and from media hype, which is extremely unhelpful. I, for one, look forward to receiving the report and until then, despite my own firm belief about the effects of lead shot, I will withhold judgement. I urge everyone to give the LAG the ability to carry out the job that it was created to do and to cease media hype and scares in the meantime.
	Country sports are an essential part of our economy. Health and safety, too, are an essential consideration in any decision that is made.
	In conclusion, country sports contribute £45 million to the Northern Ireland economy. Some 70,000 primary and secondary jobs across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland depend on sporting shooting. Every year, £2 billion is created in goods and services across the United Kingdom by sporting shooting. Some £6 billion is generated by shooting and country
	sports in the United Kingdom, including money from people who pay for shooting. We cannot underestimate the incredible contribution that country sports make to the economy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Shooting also provides £250 million a year for conservation: the sport is committed to shooting, but it is also committed to conservation. It is my belief that we can and will find a way forward on the issue, where safety is paramount and country sports can thrive and remain a way of life.

David Heath: I congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) not only on securing this debate on an important subject but on the admirably balanced way in which he presented information to the House. I am glad that he finished by stressing the importance of country sports, particularly shooting, to the economy and the conservation of our landscape. He said that he was a regular shooter, and he is not alone. He is one of 480,000 people who regularly shoot live quarry. I am just glad that I do not appear to be his quarry today: I think his targets are elsewhere.
	The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to stress that this is a complex issue—it is not a question of black and white. He is concerned to make sure that health and safety and wildlife issues are paramount, just as he is keen to make sure that the opportunities for sport and relaxation persist both in his part of the country and across the country. There are lots of interrelated interests that we have to balance.
	I shall try to deal with some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman. He mentioned in particular the recent report by the Food Standards Agency. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart) for his intervention, which highlighted the point that the hon. Gentleman was making. Let us be clear: lead is not a terribly good food additive. It is a dangerous substance; it is toxic. We do not want people to eat it. I remember something from my own history. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Somerset is known for drinking cider, and a study undertaken many decades ago discovered that the practice of making cider, which is acidic, in vats lined with lead, was probably not the best way to secure the public health of the county of Somerset. Eventually, we stopped using lead lining for the vats—historically, lead had been used for that purpose—and our public health improved as a consequence.
	It is important that the Food Standards Agency does its work and highlights any concerns that it may have. People who are very high consumers of game birds, if such people exist, should be aware that they may be exposed to a risk. However, we should stress that people would have to eat an awful lot of pheasant or duck on a daily basis to get near the dangerous level. It is important that we stress that it is not dangerous to consume lead shot game occasionally, which is what most people would do, despite the hon. Gentleman’s exhortations to eat wildfowl more frequently, especially wildfowl that he personally has shot. For most of us, wildfowl is a limited part of our diet.
	Reducing lead exposure remains a high priority for the Government. We, like successive Governments, want to reduce exposure to lead wherever possible, for both humans and wildlife. That is why I am keen, as is the
	hon. Gentleman, to wait for John Swift and his team in the Lead Ammunition Group to report in spring 2013. They have been looking at the key risks to wildlife from lead ammunition and the levels of those risks, and they intend to explore possible solutions if those risks prove to be significant. They will also report on the options for managing the risk to human health from the increased exposure to lead as a result of using lead ammunition, if measures need to be taken. I am confident that the group will take a balanced and measured view on the basis of evidence. That is why I am looking forward to that report. I think the hon. Gentleman shares that view and is concerned that there may have been early misrepresentations of what is likely to emerge.
	The hon. Gentleman titled his debate “The EU directive on lead shot”. May I reassure him that the Government are not aware of any proposals for an EU directive on lead shot? Should one be forthcoming, of course we will look carefully at any proposal to ban lead shot. We will carefully assess whether there is clear evidence of a genuine risk and, if there is, whether any proposal to control the risk is appropriate and proportionate. Again, I will look to the Lead Ammunition Group’s report to inform our position. I repeat that there is no immediate prospect of an EU directive on lead shot. There are various activities within the European Union that are relevant to lead, but not in the form that the hon. Gentleman is concerned about. There may be some misunderstanding about that.

Jim Shannon: The concerns that we have are about the EU’s attitude to lead in general. As parliamentarians concerned about the impact of Europe, we are worried that the EU may try to introduce regulations on that. We are greatly encouraged to hear the Minister say that that will not happen.

David Heath: I believe that to be the case. There is a European regulation for the registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. We know that Sweden has indicated its intention to bring forward by April next year a proposal to restrict the use of lead and lead compounds in consumer products, but that does not include lead shot within its scope. There may be an informal view that Sweden would wish to extend that, but that is not on the table at present. I hope I can reassure the hon. Gentleman, but obviously we will watch carefully and if proposals come forward, we will look at them on their merits in due course.
	Let us deal with the real concerns that lead shot may harm our wildlife. We are clear that ingesting lead is probably not good for birds, animals or humans. It is important that we ensure that the right steps are taken to conserve our wild birds, particularly our water bird species. It is not yet entirely clear what risks the use of lead shot might pose for the conservation of our wild birds, but the existing restrictions on its use need to be respected, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out.
	The research that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs commissioned from the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust in 2010, to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention, highlighted some concerns about compliance with the Environmental Protection (Restriction on Use of Lead Shot) (England) Regulations 1999. I entirely accept his point about the provenance of any lead appearing in the ducks, but the fact is that 70% of the ducks examined were found to have been shot with lead, which is a cause for concern. Even advocates
	of hunting game recognise that any clear evidence of non-compliance is a matter for concern. We will be looking at that carefully, but we will also take into account the points he has make, because it seems to me that some of them are balanced and valid.
	I stress again what I think the hon. Gentleman was at pains to say throughout his contribution: what we need is balance. We must weigh up the arguments and the evidence, and not in isolation. We must look at matters in the round. I think that at the heart of the debate there is more that unites the various interests than divides them. We all want to see healthy wildlife, a well-managed countryside, thriving communities and a sustainable rural economy. Therefore, we need to ensure that the evidence is looked at carefully by the experts in the lead ammunition group and that we understand the risks so that we can respond in a measured and sensible way. That is why the Government will not rush to any premature conclusions. We will look at the evidence and will not move to any snap judgements. We will evaluate the results of John Swift’s report and consider the evidence it adduces and its recommendations in due course.
	I can give an absolute assurance that we understand the importance of shooting, both in the rural economy and as a form of relaxation that the hon. Gentleman and many other people in the country enjoy—it is not simply an economic matter—so we will balance that with the need to protect our wildlife and ensure that its health is preserved, as is the health of the wider population. We will consider the evidence and base our judgments on what strikes us as the best balance between wildlife conservation, supporting traditional jobs and industries, enhancing sustainable economic group and, of course, doing what is best for our health.
	I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate and for the points he raised. We will certainly take careful note of the points he raised on behalf of his constituents and of a much wider constituency across the country. This has been a most valuable debate and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to set out the Government’s case.
	Question put and agreed to.
	House adjourned.